9/11 Exposed

9/11 Exposed serves as a controversial inquiry into the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, calling into question the physics behind the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings. Essentially a mix-tape of archival newsreel, witness testimonials, and interviews with engineers, firefighters and architects, the film questions if the American Government was somehow complicit in the destruction of the structures that fell that day.

While the 9/11 air strikes on the Twin Towers are almost universally known, it is less publicized that 7 World Trade Center also came down several hours after the initial two impacts. The first segment of the film focuses on the symmetrical implosion of Building 7, with structural experts attesting to the fact that the collapse was more in the style of a controlled demolition than a sudden event. Yet the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded, at the end of a three-year investigation, that the collapse of Building 7 was the result of massive, long-burning fires, despite numerous expert opinions to the contrary. The filmmakers ponder what motivation NIST could possibly have to deny evidence against a fire-related implosion.

The second half of the film turns attention back to the main towers and implies their respective collapses could also indicate explosives were at play before the planes hit. Testimonial from William Rodriguez, who had been working as a janitor and was the last survivor to exit the North Tower the day of the attacks, supports this theory. Although he does not offer an explanation as to what he heard that day, Rodriguez insists there was the sound of an explosion in the building before the first plane actually hit. Further input from engineers and architects supports the notion that the Twin Towers came down in a way that is consistent with a non-spontaneous collapse.

9/11 Exposed offers little explanation in terms of motivation for the conspiracy it attempts to reveal, relying instead on raising questions over answering them. Borrowing heavily from pre-existing documentaries, the film utilizes footage that some may find difficult to watch. The film raises unsettling questions about an event that is still sensitive for many, requiring an open-mind from viewers.

You people who believe this is some sort of cover up, also believe we didn't go to the moon. No matter how much proof there is to validate either, some brains are just ****** up. You also may believe that Hillary Clinton would have been a better US president. (lol)
But I suppose, it would be a boring world without conspiracy theorists.

Obviously you care and may even question, because you study these conclusions of the realities.

Raul
- 11/09/2018 at 01:10

Open your eyes dude!! Explain to me how the top floors under the roof turned to dust before the roof itself started to fall! How is that falling under its own weight? Also tell me why building 7 fell when it was never hit by an "Airplane". Take a good look at building 6 which was never mentioned and tell me why and how that building has no core... Just an FYI I'm a combat wounded Gulf War Veteran because of this bullsh*t that you refuse to except..

Mark
- 05/10/2019 at 09:42

No conspiracy and we went to the Moon but anybody would have been a better president!

Dan
- 09/14/2019 at 23:42

45 degree cut beams with liquid metal running down shows the beams were cut w thermite plasma strips at the base....standard practice on a building demo.....they were dropped.....period.

Paul
- 07/23/2018 at 03:59

A non whatever you call yourself, are a fool.
Comparing the WTC to a steel warehouse. Geez, beyond stu...d.
The towers have many types of steel throughout each floor. They are manufactured to withstand temperatures many times higher then what you think you can create in your grill, warming up a piece of rebar steel.
Each and every steel beam in the towers would've had to be at or near blast furnace temperatures right up to the second global failure occured. They were not. Most of the fuel from the jets burned off in minutes. The cold black smoke fires are office furniture and other items. Not hot enough to compromise steel.
Those 3 buildings were pre rigged with cutter charges and pre demolished on
Several floors weeks in advance. They fell at almost free fall speed, there was molten metal pouring out the sides or the building. Video shows the explosions daisy chaining down the buildings just ahead of each collapsing floor.

Its time the liars at NIST come out and admit their lies.
The perps of this crime to the World must be punished.

it collapsed under its own weight. are you an *****? do you also believe in Santa Claus?

Dan Marks
- 07/17/2018 at 23:34

Basically, the largest crime on US soil ever and no cordon or crime scene was set up, no evidence kept, all shipped off to hide what happened, watch Judy Wood - Cold Fusion video, more like science fact than fire fiction, the larger the lie, the more likely it will be believed - Adolf Hitler x

I suppose since office fires on two middle floors on only one side of an almost 50 story building where each floor covers an almost entire football field can somehow cause a global collapse at free fall speed, all firefighters should stay out of any highrise fire going forward right? NIST even says it's a "new" type of collapse, because it's never happened before. So at any moment during a highrise fire, even if the fire is isolated to a couple floors on just one side, the entire building might collapse at free fall speed. Are all firefighters and first responders being retrained to account for this "new" type of "fire induced collape"? I sure hope so. Right guys?

Have any of you people ever watched a controlled demolition? That's exactly what happened to WTC-7! The twin towers were also brought down by controlled demolitions. An uncle, brother, or relative of G.W. BUSH and G. H. W. BUSH was in charge if security for all three buildings. There was no security for several months prior to 9/11 which allowed plenty of time to rig charges. And no jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel however, termite charges placed to sever steel at a 45° angle will melt steel. And besides that the lease holder just a week prior obtained 7 billion dollar insurance policy against a terrorist attack! The twin towers were practically vacant and Mr lease holder was losing money hand over fist. I watched and heard the lease holder say "pull it" and guess who was in the room with him when the order was given to blow up T-7... John Kerry!!! If you people want to comment try doing some real research first.

I agree with everything you said.
This entire 911 attack was created because of money.
Trillions lost in an accounting error?
Under investigation, with evidence stored at WTC7.
The economy stagnant, especially in the arms manufacturing and defense spending support. Plus you mentioned the new tower owner.
The towers when built, used asbestos for fire retardant. The new owner became liable to abate all that material, costing him Billions of Dollars.
He gets an insurance company to cover the buildings for quadruple their value, against a terrorist attack.
Just as likely wording as a martian attack.
And a week later such attack happens.
Had congress declared it an act of war, the insurance company is off the hook, they never cover acts of war. Vietnam was a declared police action for that reason.
The towers were going thru building upgrades to elevator shafts etc.
Crews had plenty of time to rig charges and cover it with new fire retardant and sheet rock.
All those people killed, all those afflicted with diseases since 911. All their surviving family members are nothing more then collateral acceptable loses.
Its time ALL Americans demand the truth, and prosecute the guilty.
They will have no qualms about doing this again if they want to.

Sonny
- 12/14/2017 at 05:17

It's obvious that these people are a result of the Bush administration's "Dumb down Americans" They didn't even watch the film and open their minds. It was so obvious that this was a controlled demolition that my 12 year old son said it as soon as it happened while watching it on the news that day. Bush committed the ultimate act of treason and got dumb america to follow him and his war for profits. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

Still to this day my stomach turns about all this. It was a crime, the evidence is there for everyone to see who the criminal is. My thoughts and prayers are with all families affected negatively by this, all victims since and all those real NYPD and nyfd true soldiers who had no idea and just tried to help. Some of their testimony is compelling as well. I feel firefighters are more reputable in some cases than NYPD ...Just my opinion.

Also look into other large steel structure fires and collapses. One of the biggest questions (I know why) should be is how these two massive structures were reduced to almost just dust, like just dust, when a fire cannot melt steel. Look into the girder tests done for the actual floors of world trade. You would know they could not fall like they did from what happened. The temperature of the site weeks after also provides clues. Also, as many of you real researches are prob aware, all bomb sniffing dogs were removed before 9/11 with many employee statements saying there was alot of structural/behind closed doors, structural work or repairs being done in the weeks leading up to this date. Look into the insurance claims, which are still in court today, after this event =red flag. Thermite, was obv there, but also could have been applied via a paint combo to look normal to the average passer by in the building. Keep your mind open, question gov answers and get smart!! :)

I was at work on this day when it happened. I remember it very well, and have been compelled ever since. There is obv alot of debate and mix feelings on this. Flat out, it was a crime. Another crime that happened directly after is the most information forced down your throats. Please don't believe everything, if this really matters to you, if your future really matters for you, please research this thoroughly. Pilots for 9/11 have done some amazing work, even with most information not being granted to them thru freedom of information act. 9/11 isn't even the first time. Catch up on history, even as far back as WW1 to see the full plot. It is a shame all those people died and even more of a shame all the wars that have started since when in reality it's those powers that send you to war, provide you with an 'enemy' etc etc that you should be fighting. Educated yourself, knowledge is power, question everything, why don't we deserve truth and rise up. Revolution in order before we loose everything and every right. Please be objective and comments/convos welcome.

As a late comer to the 9/11 conspiracy, i have read argument and counterargument, evidence for and debunk, yet one thing still puzzles me, there is no scientific evidence that can debunk this, it is a feeling, a judgement. 9/11 was a crime, terrorism is a crime but crimes are created by those with motives, they are done for a purpose.
But what did Al Qaeda gain from 9/11??? A organisation that had only attacked the USA with two minor attacks previously them committed the biggest terrorism act ever. What did they gain? They have almost wiped out.. So who has gained from 9/11???

this wasn't a collapse. this wasn't a conventional controlled demolition either. This was 2 buildings that exploded itself into dust from the top down to the bottom. It is something that we have never seen before, and we try to pinpoint what happened using examples of things that we know about. That is never going to work. There is no KNOWN technology that can explain the complete and total annihilation of solid material into dust. Which simply means that what we saw happen was something new; that is why we don't have the words to describe what we saw happening;the buildings turned to dust before our very eyes- we all agree on that. No known technology does that. Therefore what we saw was something that used some sort of new technology. A new weapon capable of hideous destruction.

Can you find one thing, only one, that indicates in any way that the three WTC buildings were not brought down by demolition? If no planes hit the towers. If all new yorkers were warned and alerted months in advance that these building were going to be brought down by demolition, would the collapse of the buildings have looked any different than it did?
I lived a half mile from the site, saw the 2nd plane explosion from my kitchen window. Grabbed my kids from school and stayed glued to the TV. When the North Tower started to collapse - the first thing I said as it was happening was "That can't happen . . . "

As someone who worked for Morgan Stanley at the World Trade Center, I believe the towers were a controlled demolition. It is highly improbably, in fact a defiance of the laws of physics to believe otherwise. With the many thousands of people entering the towers every day, and with a strong security apparatus in place, it would be easy for those in power to put their plans in action. There is no doubt in my mind that this was orchestrated by the CIA, with the cooperation of the Gulliani administration. And 15 years later, they have gotten exactly what they wanted, chaos in the middle east, where they can steal ad infinitum and spy on every American. If you actually believe this was a terrorist act, you are an idiot and sucker. Just one question: who benefited from 9-11? You or the CIA?

YUP, and they did. The terrorists however, live among us and many run our legal systems and government and global establishments.

Greek
- 09/07/2015 at 04:55

a_no_n,
Can you seriously be that foolish? The proof is everywhere on how those buildings came down, why and who was responsible and it's the same people that have been doing things and sticking it in your face ever since! They got bolder, now they don't care who knows what.
Better wake up soon pal cause your not going to see what's coming next, better be aware of everything around you.

For laughs, i just went through all these posts. And it still amazes me to this day, how many uninformed, unintelligent people there are in this world. They talk such nonsense without having any professional knowledge of engineering concepts, never mind basic physics. They use reports of this and that, he said, this said, that said, nonsense....

All that is needed to come to the truth of why these buildings fell is intelligence. And even a cursory understanding of physics. The type taught in grade 9 and 10 physics. There seems to be a disconnect with the science. The paid shills stand out like a sore thumb when they argue basic physics and metallurgy with people who are experts and professionals, and there are several who post here who are experts, one of them is me. It used to make me angry, these types of argumentative mental midgets. Now I just feel pity, because they just don't understand the complexity of buildings and why they are designed the way they are. They are redundant. Built to make sure that they never fall period. They never fail or fall because of fire and the reason they are made the way they are is to make sure of that. I was taught that from day 1, and the designs have gotten even more stringent and protective of their inhabitants since the early 70s.

It never happened pre 911, and it hasn't happened post 911. There is a good reason for that. Because there is no need to change the designs of tall buildings much. They really have not changed much at all people......only some metals and materials have been made lighter, and some connectors have been slightly altered for extra strength and rigidity to help carry extra loads. But if you had the twin towers design in front of you as an engineer and designer, there was nothing you could pick out of it that was not safe. That is a fact, even by today's standards. The person who designed this building did not make any mistakes in his work. It was as described by himself, a mosquito net. And if you put a pencil through a mosquito net, the net is still there, but there is a hole. His own words right there.....

Very true Sky scrapers are designed to with stand a direct hit from planes. There was building hit in Germany the fire burned days not hours and still stood firm. Also planes are made of light materials Aluminium etc no way could that cut thru the steel core of the building its laughable and melting steel meh. People just don't wanna admit the truth like you said you cant fix ignorant or stupid. RIP all those that perished that day.

FollowTheFacts
- 07/02/2015 at 04:24

...excellent, excellent stuff...I think I gave it nine...(?)...well, there is so much powerful stuff on the web today, many revealing new angles, details...and the fact of the matter is that by now, it has been conclusively proven – and not just beyond a "reasonable" doubt, but any doubt at all – that the government story does not stand up to scrutiny...any scrutiny...
And that's all that needs to be established...quibbling about details pertaining to how this or that was done etc only serves to obfuscate and distract and consequentially protect the "dark forces" that are responsible...and many of us here and elsewhere understand who they are...
But the US citizenry has proven itself incapable of acting. In the beginning I had some understanding for this – the citizenry had every right to expect that the existing institutions they had sustained with their tax money and for which the purpose was to enforce accountability, would actually do that...but they didn't...
...what set in...? My personal belief is that, instinctively, the citizenry (which at this day and age does not deserve to be called a "citizenry") knew that if "truth" was revealed...it would be the end for the utterly illegitimate "union" known to the world as "the US"...
And people are not capable of processing that...so they let it all pass...unconcerned about the consequences for the future....
If you allow hyper-concentration and hyper-centralization of political power to form...nothing good will follow...
Anyway – if you guys are interested in this, you owe it to yourself to watch Barbara Honegger's three hour presentation dealing exclusively with the Pentagon (YouTube)...it is a jam-packed, nonstop...flow of detailed and astonishingly complete and convincing evidence collection in one riveting three hour documentary...I watched it in two "sittings"...
Very sorry for posting such a long message...

You are exactly right.
I'm still pist about this entire cover up.
If you watch older video from after 911, people are already forgetting, and they are at ground zero. To look at New Yorkers now, they have all but completely forgotten.
If a movie was made with even one common link between, the government, from the president down through all the agencies or the other private,public companies that were either tenants or had any connection to this, and NOTHING was done to investigate, it would get laughed out, no one would believe that people could be so stupid.
Here we have dozens of common links spanning years prior to 911, involving people from every branch of government and Nothing has been done.
We must all be beyond stupid.

Horst Manure
- 06/22/2015 at 11:40

The world is still paying for all this and looks like doing so for decades to come.

Someone needs to slap that nist scum til he goes into a coma. No witnesses? yeah, after they killed all of them. One of which happens to be Berry Jennings who was trapped in 7 while it was being pre-blown one area at the time. Trapped for several hours, so according to him, he heard not just one but many loud explosions. And what do they do with Larry "pull it" Silverstein?!?!? what a bunch of criminal thugs!!! Let's see how long this post is going to stand before it gets wiped out.

Given you are accusing people of murders without solid evidence, I'd say not very long.

Dawn
- 06/18/2015 at 17:49

What a fool you are. This documentary alone, is a big of evidence than your tiny brain can possibly assimilate!!!! or are you too corrupt to be able to bare watching it?!
Furthermore, you should change your handle to "Fabien Cowardice" and not "L'amour". The word "Love" (in French for those who don't know) usually has nothing to do with conspiring to mass murder innocent citizens and cover it up, so a group of world notorious criminals can make, YET, one more COLOSSAL, monetary gain.
GRATITUDE TO THE MODERATORS FOR NOT DELETING MY POST. May God Bless and protect you all. Thank you Jesus, America is still Aliiiiive!!!

whole2th
- 06/18/2015 at 09:29

Sufficient evidence exists to convene grand juries and to render indictments. Following arrests and interrogations, additional corroborative evidence may be gained to appreciate a more full extent of the conspiracy and indict other conspirators. RICO (racketeering) statutes surely apply, as this was clearly a very organized criminal scheme. See a sample indictment at 911justicecampaign dot org for Rudy Giuliani, et. al. I wonder if truth serum works on inveterate liars/deceivers?

Prominent trolls should be included in the round-up, as some have clearly indicated intent in their writings that seek to cover-up the crimes of 9-11. (wink, wink to FLA)

Dawn
- 06/18/2015 at 18:11

Thank you so much for the link. Appreciate it.
And you were right on about trolls needed to be indicted as well.
I didn't believe that education in this country is being flushed down the toilet, til I heard the little brown sac of kaka "introducing the new theory", that fires now, can progressively bring down steel buildings, though the fire temperature in question revolves around less than 700 degrees, when steel needs around 2500 degrees for it to start to liquefy. We don't even get started on, not only the lying, but @ the level at which it was carried out. If children start to think that lying and killing people is ok, it truly is the beginning of the end of this Great Country.
I am surprise they didn't say anything about the role nano-Thermite played in regard to that, which was found all over the place, and which according to explosives experts, if it's found in a place, that means whoever put it there planned to blow s*it up. And that didn't come for the "commercial" aircrafts, they claimed brought down the entire neighborhood.

Sam Shaw
- 06/22/2015 at 01:44

to think this will ever go to court. those responsible are above the courts. Thats why is was the perfect inside job. Thay are laughing at us. This is part of the master plan.

whole2th
- 06/22/2015 at 17:12

By your post, you seem to indicate that you are resigned--and won't be part of the "up-wising" to expose the criminals. I'm not giving up in exposing their criminality. Yes, we have racketeering on a vast scale. JFK Secret Society Speech on YouTube.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:54

Pull it about said it all didnt it. I think your a little paranoid though my dear, the moderators here are more than fair. Unless it gets stupid with personal attacks or a bunch of cursing, they invite opinions and debate from polar ends of the scale. Not often things get deleted. They have my respect and always have. Go easy.. :)

Dawn
- 07/13/2015 at 16:00

Thank God for them. Yeah, I realize that, they are really cool. But I am not paranoid, it's a fact of life in this country that people are being constantly attacked and persecuted for telling the truth. I go back to Berry Jennings as an example. He is no more because he, at the time, innocently just related what he has witnessed. The same goes for Brittany Murphy and her husband. They were assassinated because they were about to take the stand against Dept. of Homeland criminals and not security, as result, they never got to do that. And many others.

Paul
- 07/22/2018 at 22:05

I'm with you. It's time we all collectively round these scum bags up.
The CIA must have threatened the NIST investigators with permanent disappearance if their findings said anything about controlled demolition.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 23:56

One has to be incredibly ballsy to affirm that a demolition team
placed charges exactly at a pre-planned plane crash area. It's obvious to anyone that watches the WTC1 and 2 videos that the collapse starts right at the impact areas. How could the pilots have possibly known where to precisely hit the towers as
to no dislodge or damage the explosives and execute that maneuver perfectly?

Massively ballsy. You are correct. But if you have the MIC, NSA, CIA and/or MOSSAD then you can do what ever you with impunity and without any political ramifications. Potentially massive. So why would anyone with any power ever question the official story?

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 16:36

So, with your theory that involves the MIC (MI6?), NSA, CIA and/or MOSSAD. (Not very precise targets by the way), we are left with people without any power trying to prove a conspiracy online. What exactly is the point publishing websites about all sorts of 9/11 conspiracies if there isn't a single chance of indicting anyone? Why scream on all roofs we need a new investigation if you start with a premise that no one in power will ever question the official story?

Here is another theory that hasn't been explored (not that I back it up), what if some of the conspiracy theorists are actually agents of enemy governments trying to reduce the legitimacy of the US government in its citizens minds? If we are going to get in spies controlled conspiracies mode, wouldn't that be an avenue to investigate as well? What tells us people that propose these conspiracies online aren't paid by Iran, Pakistan or Russia? With online conspiracies, you can come up with all kinds of ideas involving any secret service and declare people guilty without the need to prove anything. Happily, courts don't operate that way because if they did, you and I would be in jail without access to computers to express our opinions.

CapnCanard
- 06/20/2015 at 03:15

LMAO... sorry but that is too funny. The events of that day have made a very small minority of people a great deal wealthier. The Military Industrial Complex(MIC) has profited to the tune of trillions of dollars. And everyday we spend nearly a billion more. Cui bono?

In terms of foreigners using "spies"... wow, that is so 1970s Cold War BS. The world has moved far beyond that outdated technology. Nations are no longer in charge. Nations are there to take the punches, so to speak. Bankster and Industrial giants rule the world and spying is industrial. The BRICS are threatening to crash the party... it may get ugly. But we will never hear about it. from the MSM, and on that you can bet your life.

BTW, you will need to step up your game.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/20/2015 at 03:36

I don't believe what I wrote, I only used it to illustrate that when you involve Security agencies you can make up just about anything because their activities are inherently secret, so it's only speculation. You can't possibly prove a conspiracy with speculation like you just did. You need tangible proof of who did what, when and where.

CapnCanard
- 06/20/2015 at 18:16

Follow the money.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 00:05

Go tell that to a judge and he will kick you out of his court. If you want justice instead of arguing aimlessly on a website, you will need to sit down and think how can I get tangible proof that I can present in court.

CapnCanard
- 06/21/2015 at 00:35

Why would anyone tell a judge? Why are you arguing your point as if you are are about to litigate? It seems you feel like you have skin the game? The position you take today is a laughable strawman argument. Next...

BTW, law is not an arbiter of truth, it is an arbiter of legal responsibility and has only tangential relationship to truth. However, I am certain you know who killed Nicole Simpson and who took the Lindbergh baby... ;)

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 01:21

One has to set some kind of minimal standard of evidence otherwise you have to believe everything presented to you as true and that defies logic. Asking for the same evidence as what would be accepted in a court seems like a good standard to weed out assumptions.

LMAO, A skin in the game, not everyone that disagrees with you has to be part of your supposed conspiracies, paranoid a little? No I am not part of your economic elite out to control every aspect of your life through an evil worldwide scheme and support from all the intelligence agencies on the planet.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:41

HAHAHA

LOL! You still think this is about evidence, of all things?

Nothing is ever about evidence, not at heart. Because before you accept a person's evidence at face value, you have to decide whether you *trust* that their evidence is real, factual, non-fabricated. The reason this entire argument exists is because people do not trust the government's story.

I'm not a conspiracist. I think the Twin Towers collapsed because they were hit by planes hijacked by al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.

I also think that we had an opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden long before we actually did. I think that killing bin Laden is not the real reason we sent troops to Afghanistan. I think the reason we sent troops to Afghanistan is so that we could faux-legitimize our invasion of Iraq as if it were about something other than geopolitical posturing, regional destabilization, and economic imperialism. I think the reason we didn't kill bin Laden then is because the higher-ups didn't want the public to assume that "mission accomplished" in Afghanistan would spell the end of our colonization project in Iraq. I'm fairly convinced that in the run-up to 9/11, we were deliberately lax on our security in the hopes that a trigger for war would present itself.

I don't trust the government's story, and if you do, you're not paying attention.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 05:46

Have you watched the video? They are saying it was a controlled demolition. Why are you arguing with me when we agree the planes and fires took down the towers?

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:48

Because what took down the towers is a very small issue in a much larger game. Even the kookiest conspiracist's efforts are worth their salt if the principle they're fighting for is transparency. Improved access to government records will reveal the skeletons in the closet, no matter what those skeletons actually turn out to be.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 05:52

The core argument presented is that the NIST report is wrong. Well NIST wasn't mandated to start an investigation on terrorists or a conspiracy plot. NIST were asked to produce a report to explain the collapse.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:55

Of course it wasn't. We never audit the actions of government officials, and again, if you don't think that's a problem, you're not paying attention.

Some people want police body cameras; I would want them for the politicians. I would want to make literally every action of a public servant while the individual is in office part of the public record, so that we have actual *evidence*, beyond *all* reasonable doubt, that the people we elect are not corrupt.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 05:59

So as soon as you become a public servant you have no right to privacy. Would you be OK if your boss forced you to wear a camera whenever you are at work?

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 06:02

That depends where the record goes, how long it stays in existence, and why it's there. I'd have no problem with the boss setting up security cameras and monitoring what goes on in the store, despite the fact that they'd be tracking my every move. Why? Because the boss deserves to know who if someone robs the store, including if it's me.

As for politicians, yes, it'd be an extremely uncomfortable situation for them. They probably wouldn't be able to hook up with prostitutes any more, or do cocaine, a terrible loss for all involved, I'm sure. But if that's what it takes to cut down on the more potent corruptions, the special interest giveaways and porkbarrel spending, I think we, as a society, have an obligation to do it. Also, cameras are tiny; it'd literally just be a lapel pin on their suit.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 06:07

Ok, that's your opinion. Noone will strap a camera on me while I am at work whatever my job is. All good if you want to put a camera in your building, tracking my every move is too much of an invasion of privacy. Would you also put cameras on person suspected or convicted of drug possession or prostitution while you are at it?

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 06:10

I'm not convinced either of those things should be crimes, and even then, as I said before, in a civilized society, the powerful are scrutinized more heavily than the powerless. Enforcing the law is far less important for prostitution and drug abuse among working adults than for bribery, nepotism, and economic conflicts of interest among lawmakers.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 06:14

I am afraid it won't work anyway. Unless you monitor them 24/7 which noone in their right mind would accept, the shady deals would happen outside work if they want them to happen. Did the cameras on cops stop them from being corrupted, nope, they only hide it better.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 06:16

There are no cameras on most cops. And the reason they can hide it is because the cameras aren't legally required to be public record.

And I know it won't work. It's not the point. The point is that we will never be able to find solutions that work until our society accepts that it has a problem. And people like this have it more right than purists like you, because at least they're looking in the right places.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 06:18

Ok, you made your point and I disagree, let's not derail a discussion on the video to something completely unrelated if you don't mind.

Sam Shaw
- 06/22/2015 at 01:35

cameras on politicians would not solve a thing. It certainly would not of prevented 9/11. You would be better off talking to the security team of world trade center. hummmmm...whats the name of who was in charge of that again? Marvin Bush. How f-ing interesting. Nothing like those off switches on cameras.

SvenTheBold
- 06/22/2015 at 02:34

Obviously, the same flaws that keep cameras from working with police would work with politicians. But you'll notice, I'm not actually talking about mere cameras; I'm talking about *live-streamed video* of every waking moment of the person's life in office. Dead batteries would be scandalous, just as how it's already scandalous for us to not know what our elected representatives are doing and saying; we should have access to *all* the minutiae of their lives for the entire duration of the time they spend lording themselves over us.

Because it's only secrecy that allows them to arrange meetings with special interest groups without us knowing what goes on. It's only secrecy that allows them to hatch plans. Take away the secrecy, and everything else will instantly fall, if not perfectly into place, at least closer. Shine a light on the halls of power, and the roaches will scurry out of view.

Samuel Morgan Shaw
- 06/23/2015 at 02:09

I understand your intention in your statements. I agree it could help. Wouldn't those who were able to pull off such an event see themselves outside and above the law? Seems to me this is the case. Wish there was surveillance of those who entered WTC during the reported power outages and other days. If a team of experts were allowed to enter and secretly set up demolition explosives then you'd think there might be footage. Then again this team of covert professionals would of thought of just that.

SvenTheBold
- 06/23/2015 at 06:45

It's a delicate balancing act. Conspiracy is like cancer; if it gets big enough, even the chemo would kill you. The only way to eliminate the ability for groups to follow covert agendas would be to institute universal public access surveillance for all people big and small. But we all know that's no solution; in the kind of dystopian nightmare where even the maintenance guys are under constant surveillance, power just becomes based on computer-aided sociological manipulation.

IMO, the real key is simply to ensure that the people with the most power get the most scrutiny; fame is an appropriate handicap for the strong.

Sam Shaw
- 06/22/2015 at 01:31

there are many holes in their report. its a farce.

Sam Shaw
- 06/22/2015 at 01:30

I have close friends that were killed the the second tower.
My aunt was across the street when the towers came down.
Explosions. Explosions. Explosions. That had NOTHING to do with either plane.

The Nist report is so full of holes. Nist wont release vital info in the name of "public saftey" but according to the official report is that terrorist boarded planes with box cutters and took over the planes. Wow such public safety we have. I am sure releasing that info will cause I whole fluxation of terrorists to invade America and use the Nist info against us. Lmao
You think fire that didnt even reach the correct tempratures to bend/melt the steel brought down the tower. You must believe too, that jet fuel made its way down to the bottom of the world trade center causing the explosions.. lmao

Sorry but if you think the planes impact made the twin towers come down in total freefall. well enjoy running that theory.
Every single year more and more people join the side of those questioning the whole deal. I'll be out on the streets on September 11th still protesting the "official story" until justice is served or until I am buried deep in the earth.
Keep going in circles Fabien. Keep it up

CapnCanard
- 06/21/2015 at 17:35

Quote:

"One has to set some kind of minimal standard of evidence otherwise you have to believe everything presented to you as true and that defies logic. "

Yes. The authorities who promote the official story didn't examine evidence and yet many accept that story without corroboration, or even a simple compare and contrast. That much is clear, and has been acknowledged by those in authority. i.e. those who present the theory and those who have little more than a faith based defense of the official and accepted conspiracy theory.

To believe any theory will take some dissemination of the events OR INSTEAD we can just blindly, faithfully, accept without question a theory based on WHO is telling us said theory. This isn't rocket science, far from it. It is selling a big lie and throughout history telling a big lie has been very effective, as evidenced by your own refusal to explore beyond the official story, but that is not my problem...

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:28

Barack Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all past presidents combined, and has given them, collectively, 31 times as much jail time.

Why on earth would any reasonable person become a whistleblower against the entire U.S. government when it maintains an active persecution campaign against people who reveal the wrongdoing of the powerful?

I mean, come on, it's like you've never even heard of Edward Snowden...

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 05:39

So now the entire governement is part of the conspiracy. Why would a reasonable person even think the entire U.S. government is part of the conspiracy in the first place. We aren't talking an agency or an office, the entire government, that is utterly ridiculous. That would be 2 804 000 people involved in your very secret conspiracy.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:43

It's well-documented that police forces protect their own with a code of silence.

Do you really think the same psychology can't exist in the government?

I'm not a conspiracist at all. I'm just asking you why you think we should trust judges when our own president prosecutes those who speak the truth. (To be clear, I voted for the man, so I'm not clean here.)

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 05:49

See my reply below, where I explain that it's a standard of evidence. If it's not evidence that would be accepted in court to initiate a trial, they are assumptions and shouldn't be treated as undeniable proof of anything.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:52

Proof is not the standard needed to begin an investigation. Probable cause is the standard for a search and seizure warrant. With great power comes great responsibility, and, in a civilized world, greater and greater scrutiny.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 05:55

Sure, provide me with some evidence that MI6, NSA, CIA and/or MOSSAD were involved as stated by the original poster, ideally identify which agents took part in the plot and I will be all go for an investigation.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 05:57

I'm not attempting to defend what the original poster is saying. I'm attempting to defend what the original poster is doing, i.e. scrutinizing the actions of government officials and agencies. You're attacking both. Why?

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 06:01

I don't mind scrutiny, I think what he is saying is complete nonsense and saying so and am asking for evidence.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 06:05

"What exactly is the point publishing websites about all sorts of 9/11
conspiracies if there isn't a single chance of indicting anyone? Why
scream on all roofs we need a new investigation if you start with a
premise that no one in power will ever question the official story?"

These are your words. They are a direct attack on the process of attempting to poke holes in the official record. Your words say more about you than they say about the truth.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 06:09

That was a reply to his affirmation that noone in power will ever do anything about his conspiracy theory.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 06:13

Yes, it was. It was you saying; why scrutinize the government at all if you're a powerless peon who can't do anything about it.

In other words, it was you attacking what he's doing, as if, somehow, its inability to correct the past means it has no value for convincing people today to not trust the government.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 06:16

That's your opinion, I respect it but I disagree. I think I am the authority on what I am thinking even though the words I wrote might make you think otherwise.

SvenTheBold
- 06/21/2015 at 06:17

Fair enough. Speak clearly if you want to be heard clearly.

slpsa
- 07/05/2015 at 05:01

Its rather simple. Do you leave the house much Fabien? You seem to have missed a lot in fourteen years,

slpsa
- 07/05/2015 at 05:00

Get in touch with Dr Stephen Jones. If your that intent on wanting proof. Find a way to write him. Search him. Get back to us when you are educated.

Fabien L'Amour
- 07/13/2015 at 19:29

I know of Steven Jones affirmations and consider them wrong as do many others including engineers and scientists.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:53

Wrong. I am an engineer. You assume they say that. I on the other can tell you, unequivocally, that most know the truth. And say it behind closed doors for fear of backlash. Im one of many who are not afraid to say so publicly. You can " think" what you like. The science doesnt lie and if you want to think so, your free to do so.

Dawn
- 07/14/2015 at 01:56

Thank you. He does not have what it takes to write a Ph, D in Physics. And He doesn't even need to, all he needs to do is watch Dr. Jones' Straightforward Documentary. I loved the way that Physicist explained everything on there. He really made it easy for anyone to grasp what he is talking about. Like they say on that commercial :"Even a caveman can do it." LOL. And I wished I could hug that poor man for the persecution he was put through for just exposing the truth. It brings tears to my eyes.

dmxi
- 06/22/2015 at 23:53

the second part of your comment is one theory that is mostly disregarded but should be respected & followed for scrutiny.double thumbs up as you prove to out-think the think-out-of-the-box approach.

slpsa
- 07/05/2015 at 04:57

With all due respect my friend, I think the PNAC documents referring to the Middle Eastern Strategy, written by the Hawks who belonged to this think tank...they eventually took office! That about spells out what this was all about. Its not provable in a court of law, but in my honest opinion, those strategies written by the group that were duly elected have come to fruition because of 9/11, and those goals continue with the Obama Administration.....They got their New Pearl Harbor as referred to by the people writing that paper.

Follow the money. That is not thinking outside the box, because where there is war, there is money. You follow who profits, therein is usually the root cause.

I use only logic and common sense to think these things through, I can no more prove who actually did 9/11 than anyone else.

But when it comes to the science, I can speak clearly and knowledgeably. Steel framed buildings cannot collapse at free fall speed from fire damage. It is beyond my imagination that anyone, even one single person would believe that nonsense. The laws of physics cant be changed because a Government said so. I pity the people who swallow this crap. always have. Always will.

dmxi
- 07/05/2015 at 16:59

i agree but i like to walk down every path possible for deduction purposes.

whole2th
- 06/18/2015 at 09:38

Electronic targeting of drones which resembled passenger planes answers FLA's question about "how could the pilots have possibly..." Study the connection of (missing $3.4 trillion dollars of Pentagon allocations) Rabbi Dov Zakheim, comptroller of the Pentagon, to a company that contracted with Boeing for installing 'remote flight control systems' (read: drones), AND 'flight termination systems' (go BOOM!) once the drones' missions are terminated. It's an interesting coinkydink that the Pentagon was hit in the Dept. of Naval Intelligence accounting division--killing half the auditors, budget analysts, and accountants who were working on finding the mission trillions and destroyed the computers. Backup computers are said to have been housed in Building 7.

In 2004 Zakheim stepped down from his post at the Pentagon with little explanation. However, his resignation followed a highly critical audit by the General Accountability Office. He moved to Israel ... dual US-Israeli citizen.

Zakheim supported the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative organization that played an important role in driving public and official support for the invasion of Iraq before and after the 9/11 attacks. In 1998, Zakheim signed a PNAC open letter to Clinton about the crisis in Kosovo. The letter called for U.S. support for regime change in Belgrade. Two years later, Zakheim contributed to a PNAC paper titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

So in your version of the conspiracy, did the "drone passenger planes" have passengers on board or not? Why did they need to hit WTC1 and 2 if their targets were the Pentagon and WTC7. Why did they scrap 4 "drone passenger planes" when only 2 were necessary? Obviously they were rich guys with 3.4 trillions but it sounds like an awful waste of money and planning. Why not engineer a massive electrical failure followed by a fire to destroy a bunch of backup computers in WTC7 instead of crashing 2 planes in 2 110 stories skyscrapers? That would have attracted a lot less attention than destroying WTC 1 and 2. What kind of shitty covert action is that?

he is a paid schill, of that i have never had a doubt, because I truly thought, noone can actually be that dense to believe one iota of the official story. The burden is not on anyone who questions the lies, it is on the speakers of those words to answer the really hard questions that are ignored. By the laws of physics alone, those 3 buildings, especially 7, being a classic example of such..., were brought down by explosives. Not a chance they werent, as i have mentioned for 14 years. My experience in these associated fields speaks for itself. Im no conspiracy theorist, Im an engineer, and a truthful one. Ive never met another engineer who doesnt think the same as I do. Some of them just wont say that publicly for fear of ostracism. Ive also said that for fourteen years...

Sam Shaw
- 06/21/2015 at 10:04

are you void of imagination? do you think that with our technology today that a team of professionals could not do such?
are you a fan of the "official" story?
everything about the official explanation of 9/11 is wrong.
you know that,

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 12:16

Look all my comments below and come to your own conclusions. Everything is wrong, you aren't going for nuance are you?

Sam Shaw
- 06/22/2015 at 01:45

I asked you two questions. Look at all your circular debates going know where. Your debate tactics are comparable to a jiu jitsu partitioner who lacks any submissions. Counteracting everything but never really gaining any ground.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/22/2015 at 12:12

I am not here to gain ground. The ones who need to gain ground are the conspiracy theorists with a case strong enough to get people arrested. This is not a matter of opinion and imagination but evidence.

If they indeed found "nano-thermite" and molten steel, why don't they bring their evidence to molecular chemists and get a detailed in-depth analysis and produce a detailed scientific report of their chain of events that they can then publicly provide to an attorney. Make a big event of it with all the media invited to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed. After 14 years of websites and youtube videos, I think it's time to start doing something a bit more rooted in reality when they claim to have irrefutable evidence of their theories.

As for my opinion, here is what I wrote to someone else in this thread before :

"Seriously, I agree that only the force of the plane crashes wouldn't have collapsed the building because if it did the collapse would have been immediate. The uncontrolled fires were the culprit in my opinion. The fireproofing in both towers was very deficient and further damaged by the plane crash, all that was missing was heat to deform the steel and the fires provided it as is clearly demonstrated by the collapses that started just above the plane crashes."

Samuel Morgan Shaw
- 06/23/2015 at 02:01

Your right on thet point actually. Hard to get that thermite evidence when the crime seen was meticulously taken away and shipped to China. Unreal that in a crime seen as large as the biggest crimes scenes in America was allowed to be treated as such.
Now when you look at video and picture evidence like molten metal dripping off and out the side of the WTC you have to go through a list of sources that would create that type of temperature and more importantly why is this substance there in the first place. What would cause steel to weaken that much and then collapse in a free fall.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/23/2015 at 06:41

Have a look at the color of molten aluminum alloys at different temperatures, the hypothesis that melted aluminum can only be one color is wrong. Just google aluminum melting and tell me it can't be the same color as the liquid coming out the side of the tower. Anyone that works in an aluminum foundry will confirm if you need more proof. A good image can be found if you google : "Euro zone March factory PMI revised up, Greece slips" Definitely not a source related to the U.S. government conspiracy.

At present, aluminum is used in the aviation industry everywhere in the world. From two thirds to three quarters of a passenger plane’s dry weight is Aluminum. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93% Al, 4.5% Cu, 1.5% Mg and 0.5% each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point for the alloy to a value of about 548 Celsius instead of the 660 Celsius for pure Aluminum. You can also look for the color of molten zinc alloys while you are at it.

Dr Frank Greening, a PhD in chemistry did a detailed analysis of the possible chemical reactions with aluminum at the WTC. He also has an interesting point that iron oxide (rust) and aluminum was present in large quantity from the structure and the plane, the 2 are common components of thermite. In his analysis, he also accounted for the oxygen cylinders carried on all U.S. commercial
aircraft that contains 3200 liters of O2.

You missed the alloy part, noone builds a plane out of pure aluminum, come back when you get an education in basic reading and logic.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 01:48

I hold more letters and credentials after my name than you'll ever dream of son....your a schill and full of sh*t. period. Talk all the BS you want, your lies don't hold up for one minute to a professional. carry on liar...your not new, but just as full of it.

Fabien L'Amour
- 07/13/2015 at 05:27

I don't care how many letters you add after your name if the simple fact that melted aluminum changes color when it reaches the appropriate temperature is not a fact of physic you are aware of.

But don't take my word, write another email to Steven D. Chastain who wrote several books on metal melting and casting. I'll save you typing, here is his usual reply to WTC windows flow :

"The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window."

He is an mechanical engineer if that can reassure your ego.

slpsa
- 07/05/2015 at 05:05

The answer is simple. Structural steel does not behave that way unless it is explosively destroyed. It is that simple. Cut and dried. No way around it. Cant happen. Finito. :) Cutter charges are the only way to do it.

slpsa
- 07/05/2015 at 04:36

"If they indeed found "nano-thermite" and molten steel, why don't they
bring their evidence to molecular chemists and get a detailed in-depth
analysis and produce a detailed scientific report of their chain of
events that they can then publicly provide to an attorney."

Actually they did do exactly that. The dust has been tested by scientists and independent labs. Evidence ignored. Enough said. Do some research before you say some of the things you do. Try Nels Harrit. Try Stephen Jones. Google is your friend.

Fabien L'Amour
- 07/05/2015 at 07:06

No they didn't find "nano-thermite", they found red and gray minute chips composed of "intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper."

Wow, quite a discovery in the dust of a collapsed building with aluminum sheating who had a plane mostly made of aluminium crash into a bulding made of steel. It's not even homogenous as they sometimes find potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. Somehow, sometimes, the "nano-thermite" factory decided to throw in unnecessary potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper just for the kick of it.

"Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite.
Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust
samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not. "

Iron oxide is discussed at length yet they don't bother to explain that iron oxide can be simple rust. Rust consists of hydrated iron(III) oxides and iron(III) oxide-hydroxide.

"From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite." LOL, we conclude it contains the ingredients of thermite, I conclude it contains aluminium and iron oxide which can be the ingredients of plane debris and rust and lots of other things.

As for the presence of nano-particles, particulate matter concentration can rise to very high level when large buildings collapse. It's hardly evidence of "nano-thermite" but evidence of very fine dust.

And finally, what proof do we have that Dr Harrit and Jones really did examine uncontaminated dust from the WTC. The samples were supposedly given to them by non scientists several years after the events.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 01:50

Your a paid uninformed lying government mouthpiece. We all see it, im only responding because your a very rude and ignorant person. Carry on making a fool and a schill of yourself Fabien...

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:37

paid to speak this stuff he is my friend. dont waste energy on a know nothing. He is quite rude as well. as you will read...

Paul
- 07/22/2018 at 22:43

Geez,
Aluminum planes would disintegrate almost entirely in the outer shell of those buildings. There were explosions inside the towers before the planes approached and just in front of the plane before it hit the structure. There is evidence the last plane was controlled remotely by computer by the maneuvers it made.
Remember fire burns up, so how does a few thousand gallons of kerosene, that would flash burn in minutes, burn long enough, hot enough to even warm a steel beam let along weaken or melt it. Then how did it get down 1000 feet, a 100 floors, to weaken every major structual beam so exactly and precisely that the buildings collapsed within their own foot print.
Where are all the beams, there should've been a debris pile 10 or 20 stories high.
None of the debris should've been removed until it was completely documented by a forensics team.
People that think red paint chips survived in metal recovered.
So we're to believe it got so hot to completely melt steel beams but the paint didn't evaporate.

Time to wake up.

Idonteven
- 06/17/2015 at 23:17

This is the only proof any normal person needs:

Hundreds if not thousands of scientific papers have been published by reputable peer-reviewed journals showing how the government story was impossible.

Not a single one has been refuted.

So either science has been based on lies for thousands of years, or any attempt at refuting them would end up with losing your career because your claims have to be proven by many other people. Guess which one it is.

I'd be interested to see the proof and I am sure several other readers are. Can you provide the titles of a few dozens of those thousands of peer-reviewed articles for the readers? We can then google the articles without you posting links which is forbidden on here. Nothing beats straight out of the horse's mouth information.

It also doesn't make sense that you aren't sure if it's hundreds or thousands of peer reviewed papers but know none have been refuted.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:46

Again, i read where what your asking for is there for you to read. Those peer reviewed papers exist and they are online. Ive read about half of them. You sir, would not have a clue about any of it. It would appear as Chinese to your untrained knowledge base, because copying and pasters are not engineers or scientists. You are an obvious troll. Nothing more.

I think the biggest piece of proof, again comes from science. Scientific journals to be exact. The only place in the world where actual science is recognized. It is a place where you publish your entire scientific method of your findings, and it is peer reviewed by many people to see if you were actually correct.

If you are wrong, you are an outcast and are no longer able to publish in most cases. The funny thing is, there are hundreds if not thousands of different papers outlining the many aspects of 9/11 and how it was a controlled demolition and why the NIST report is completely false.

Isn't it ironic that NIST won't publish their 'scientific' papers? Oh that's right, national security issues. If terrorists were to discover how to take down a skyscraper with a small garbage fire the world as we know it would end. I know, they discovered alchemy! They can now change normal building materials into nano thermite at the snap of a finger. Darn, how didn't we know this before!?

There isn't a single published paper that refutes the facts. That is a fact. So for everyone here crying 'conspiracy theory' there's only one place you need to look. You can repeat ad nauseam how many people have refuted it, and it still doesn't make a shred of a difference as they have never actually scientifically refuted it.

Last but not least: molten steel. Yes, it's documented on film and in scientific analysis. Physcially impossible to have from a fire outside of a blast furnace. I'm not talking about the support columns, I'm talking about the 6% of all the dust that came from the WTC's containing molten iron/aluminum spheres. I'm talking about the video evidence of molten iron spewing from the side of the building like it was a foundry, that NIST calls "molten aluminum" - which in fact looks like Mercury when it is molten.

Going on the news with a couple of your buddies from popular mechanics with a thin little magazine saying you just refuted the first case of something happening in history makes Einstein's quote all the more funny.

Remember those words kids, because it's the only scientific fact anyone with a brain needs.

It's too bad there are so many brainwashed fools who believe the governments version. It really shows you lack the capacity to take 5 minutes out of your life and learn something new. It's almost deja vu seeing what these fools write and what you hear religious nuts spewing.

I've only ever needed one fact to convince me, and that is physics. I know, crazy talk! You see, physics doesn't lie and that's the great thing about it. It would be borderline impossible for a building of that size to come down in it's own footprint without assistance. This is proven a thousand times over for people who don't want to learn and want to be brain dead basement dwellers. Just look at a demolition gone wrong. One charge fails, and that building doesn't come down at all, or it comes down in unpredictable ways. This is after a building has been completed gutted and hacked up to weaken it's structure.

By the NIST model itself, the towerss failed on a single side. It would not have buckled the support columns across the entire building. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Key word there for you less educated: PHYSICS. Even in the case the other columns gave way to stress, the building still would have sheared off it's top half into the street and caused such massive collateral damage it couldn't be allowed to happen that way.

2 buildings coming down with perfect symmetry? Sure, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt - they were basically identical and we'll call it a historical precedent assuming NIST and the other companies actually share the evidence instead of calling it "Classified for national security".

A 3rd building that was created specifically to resist fire somehow collapsed with perfect symmetry from fires that were not visible, and absolutely no damage to the building itself that would compromise it's structure.

I feel crazy just writing this to explain. It's like I'm talking to an alien who wanted to learn about Earth and knew nothing of how our physical world worked. I see this anon and the fabio m*ron parroting their same "herr durr 500c melt steel gais" lines in every single one of these videos and my heart just breaks that people could really be this ignorant after almost 15 years, and that some people will actually believe the garbage that spews from their mouths.

Agree with you, drop the condescending manner and insults and he might have written something of worth.

Idonteven
- 06/17/2015 at 22:34

I don't agree, as the insults were quite minor and only serve to highlight the lack of intelligence. When your beliefs are so concrete in your own mind, you have to be broken down completely to be rebuilt.

It's my feeling most people willing to listen to reason already have, and all that remains are the parrots. Maybe it will force them to take a few minutes and learn.

Lord knows if they actually watched a few minutes of half of the videos here, their entire opinion would change. All you need to do is hear scientific facts of the world that are not open to debate because there isn't one to be had, and your mind is changed.

Idonteven
- 06/17/2015 at 23:28

I don't agree. To judge the worth of something because you disagree with how the words were placed together is juvenile. They were minor jabs towards people who clearly have not looked at either side of the evidence.

Fabien kind of asks for it. Im usually polite and withhold the insults. But sometimes, gutter speak is more effective than trying to be intelligent and polite. Paid shills like Fabien do not deserve my respect. Period. My name has more letters after it than Fabien's entire moniker, but yet he insults my intelligence at will. Physics is all anyone needs to understand to know this whole thing is a lie, and a setup. My experiences let me know on a much deeper level, the actual truth. Which is, those building were brought down by explosives. There are no other alternative explanations. Period.

whole2th
- 07/05/2015 at 06:58

An attorney has drawn up indictments for Rudy Giuliani, et. al, and this document can be four at 911justicecampaign d0t org among other places.

Jon
- 06/16/2015 at 21:37

People should start watching believe it or not and realize that many things happen without easy logic or viable explanation. But multiple plane collisions and the heat from at least an hour long burning fuel are enough reasons to send the building down. The destruction just hit the right spots to demolish the building with the least collateral damage.

Media is misused by terrorists organization to create SOCIAL pressure that adds insult to injury. BTW, the Taliban is expert in mind control. Just imagine how the actual or grass roots terrorists were recruited & motivated to religiously plan and execute these suicide missions.I guess the effort now is to fish online for the next terrorist volunteer who would frivolously die for a synthetic cause and strike down the US government.

According to the official version, the jet fuel was not a factor in bringing down the buildings, because most of it burnt up in the initial explosions and the rest within the first couple of minutes. Also, the impact of the planes was not a factor as you suggest. The structural integrity of the buildings survived the impacts and it was simply low-temperature office fires that melted the steel, causing the buildings to collapse.
Again, that's the official version, but your version definitely sounds far more logical. Although only two of the three buildings were hit by planes, so you version of events doesn't explain why building 7 collapsed. And you might want to be careful, diverging from the official narrative will get you labeled a "nut-job conspiracy theorist", regardless of the fact that their version of events violates the laws of physics.

Another thing you might want to keep in mind that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and that it was the US government who put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. In the summer before 9/11 the Taliban were in Washington negotiating the construction of oil pipelines through their country, but those talks broke down and an invasion of Afghanistan was planned. As luck would al Qaeda, another US government creation, allegedly carried out the attacks giving America the excuse they needed to invade Afghanistan.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 02:36

Can you please point on which page of an official report it says the fires melted the steel? It is a very ridiculous affirmation, I am curious to learn who made it. If you can't point to an official report, I'd still be interested to know which website posted that information to see who are the imbeciles that came up with that ridiculous information.

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 13:54

You are on here defending the official version and yet you do not know what it is. You've obviously done no research in to this at all, because if you had you wouldn't be asking me to name a website with this information, because there are countless sites with this info. The best thing would be for you to read the official version.

NIST claims that building seven was brought down by fire alone, whereas the other two buildings were "weakened" by structural damage and the offices fires caused them to collapse. If there had been no low-temperature office fires, the buildings would not have collapsed.

NIST has no evidence to back up their claims the fire alone brought down building 7. NIST "ignored the National Fire Protection Association protocol — specifically, the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations — and refused to perform a forensic investigation. As a consequence, NIST has no physical proof to back up its unusual explanation for WTC 7's destruction."

They even admit it is the first time in history that fire brought down a building. Despite this, they refuse to release the data their computer model is based. Nor have they recommended any changes in building codes that could prevent this from happening again.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 17:39

I am not defending the official version, I am expressing my views. Relax.

Idonteven
- 06/17/2015 at 23:23

Then try actually doing some research before asking ridiculous questions that would take you a whole 30 seconds to figure out.

Expressing your views 15 years after the fact with no knowledge of the situation is ignorant at best, and borderline insanity not far away.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 11:54

Here is a reaction I find odd, conspiracy theorists complain that their views are ignored yet they try to quiet people that disagree on a public forum calling them insane and stupid.

Jon
- 06/17/2015 at 05:18

I think the issue is this building is not solid steel but put in place by heavy concrete floors balanced and supported by braided long steel cables that hang on the main beam at the center,

The closest technology to this is the suspension bridge where a few cut cables cause the whole structure to fall apart.

Pressure and temperature are a tandem so maybe when the temps went up, the capacity of the structure overshot the weight or pressure limits. With whole floors suddenly falling, the structure just had to collapse.

Anyway, why create an impression of expertise? Why make ordinary people vote on this TECHNICAL subject? This is a misapplication of democratic space by its enemies.

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 13:38

That is not how the building designed, in fact it is the exact opposite. It was designed so that multiple steel beams could be cut and yet the building could still retain its structural integrity through weight disbursement. The best analogy used it that of the mesh of a screen door.

It's also important to keep in mind that ALL buildings are built with structural redundancy. This means they can carry a load capacity far heavier than they actually do. With the WTC buildings, they could hold anywhere from 3-5 times the weight they were actually sustaining. The "heavy concrete floors" were nowhere near the critical capacity.

I am not presuming temperatures, far from it. I am basing my statements on the temperatures provided by NIST.

The problem it that most people have no idea what the official version is, and yet they insist on defending it.

Jon
- 06/17/2015 at 16:55

Well, judging from the dust and rubble debris this building collapse generated as witnessed by millions on worldwide TV, your claims seem to fall apart. Pictures do speak a thousand words.

If the whole multi-story building was metal, then it should not have collapsed that way. It may still be standing like a steel hull of a shipwreck that got a gaping hole. If as you claim it is like a mesh wire of a screen door then that mesh wire will still be in tact, even if it is lying horizontally. The problem is where is your evidence?

It took a while to sort and remove the debris. Where is the steel structure you were saying? Or at least offer proof that an army of welders and tons of welding supplies cut the metal parts into pieces. Such activities cannot be hidden from the public. Show us video or picture evidence of the mesh wiring that holds 3-5 times the weight, etc.

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 20:49

So the engineers who designed and built the buildings must be wrong about the way the buildings were constructed, because you can't get your mind around the fact that the official version of what happened is a lie? Is that what you are trying to say?

"Show us video or picture evidence of the mesh wiring that holds 3-5 times the weight, etc."

Google it for yourself, you will find thousands of pictures and hundreds of documentaries on the subject. All skyscrapers are built with structural redundancy to withstand much heavier payloads than they are carrying.

The whole point is that steel buildings DO NOT collapse that way. That's what the "truther" movement is about. Steel buildings do not collapse from office fires. The only thing that can bring a steel framed building down in such a manner is a controlled demolition.

Other things to keep in mind, office fires cannot melt structural steel. When concrete is falling , it does not turn to dust. When a building collapses, gravity brings it straight down, there is no energy to eject steel beams weighing thousands of pounds hundred of meters diagonally.

You obviously have spent little to no time researching this topic and have no clue what the official version is. You are more than welcome to continue believing it, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

At least do the research so you can try and formulate an argument that is actually based on the official version

MuchIntelligence
- 06/17/2015 at 22:40

I have finally seen what the full scale of psychotic actually is. Incredible.

You know what's even more sad, is you can't even f--king take the evidence provided by your own side to make a point. Who are you arguing against anyway?

Are you now saying a steel structure with 800 tons of steel was not entirely made of steel? Are you kidding me right now you demented waste of air?

The government has already said what happened. They shipped the entire lot of steel to China, while only allowing their own investigators to look. This is documented by NIST, and whoever else's nuts you're swinging from. It's also well documented no other organizations (even government ones like FEMA) were allowed to officially participate, and had to create independent studies from scrap yards before it was shipped out

Idonteven
- 06/17/2015 at 23:21

You're an absolute nutjob. Every single claim you've made has been documented by the people you are supporting.

Go read some NIST documents or look at the building plans. Nothing you mentioned is a secret, and it's been proven over and over again.

"Mesh wiring" = 800 tons of structural steel.

Army of welders? 6% of all the dust everywhere around the towers contained ACTIVE thermitic compounds. You cannot accidentally make thermite/thermate. Again, another impossibility. Keep parroting your nonsense though.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:51

Sir, you have not a clue. As someone told you, those 2 towers were the opposite of what you are describing. wow. Suspension cables....lol. Uh no. Not even close.

Jon
- 07/13/2015 at 03:52

I got to learn about tall buildings having a way to correct movement due to earthquakes using counter weights and balances. These are done using steel cables. If the mechanical machine that keeps the building upright and safe from hitting each other during an earth shaking event has been damaged, then expect these to work against the structural integrity of the building.

Jon
- 07/13/2015 at 10:26

How do you think do they raise the floors of the building from ground up? It was not delivered prefabricated as one piece. Also, try searching about earthquake proofing of skyscrapers. These use counter weights and steel cables that move with the entire structure.

The impact of commercial planes loaded with hundreds of passengers and their baggage can provide an imbalance that can make the counter weights move and pound against the core structure.Something got to absorb the force of impact and if the counter weights SPREADS the absorption of force, then perhaps that made the whole building collapse instead of damaging only a few floors.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:55

I am a certified engineer with almost 33 years experience. Not much else to say. They suggest a pancake is what happened. A pancake does not include freefall speeds. Which is what happened. That is all you need to understand.

Idonteven
- 06/17/2015 at 10:24

There's a reason forensic reconstruction takes place in almost every case of an accident, and especially a precedent setting situation such as this one where for the first time in history.. sorry.. for the 3 first times in history, buildings collapsed in their own footprint at as close to freefall velocity as you could get with no assistance.

Sadly, another lost soul who just grabs whatever words he can find in the dictionary, strings them together, and tries to form an argument.

Newton rolls over in his grave every time one of you halfwits post, or open your mouths, or even let the world know you exist.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:49

Newtons Law cannot be changed as you well know. There is no more argument needed. We all wish Newton was here to explain to these untrained copy and pasters that it is impossible. The whole story.

Paul
- 07/23/2018 at 03:13

If steel melts that readily, in a fire fueled by kerosene that flash burned off in a few minutes, and the only thing left burning was normal office supplies and materials, then maybe you can explain how the charcoal in my grill burns hotter for a much longer time, with the accelerant I add and yet my grill doesn't melt to the ground.
2 weeks after 911 crews were still digging areas in the sub basement pulling out material that was still molten and measured nearly 1500 degrees F.
Buried under layers of thick concrete dust and still burning. Ridiculous!!

Ryvex
- 06/15/2015 at 20:16

The saddest thing about these discussions is how many people think they are more intelligent than career architects, demolitions experts, scientists, physicists, decorated military officers, firefighters - the list really goes on. People who literally have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. They are staking their entire existence on the assumption they are actually competent at their craft.

There is a staggering disparity between the amount of experts who say the buildings were brought down intentionally and those who say they were not.

We're crazy because popular mechanics and a handful of government picked agencies said so. I'll admit it, for many years I believed it was terrorists. I swallowed it all up and was a racist piece of trash towards muslims and islam. Then I was laid off, I had a lot of time on my hands and i started reading, watching, and researching. I've watched 90% of the videos on here and gone through just about every 9/11 based text you could find multiple times. While many are absolute nut jobs, there are equally as many with the most intelligent people I've ever seen.

I come off very combative, but it's to make you read what I have to say. I can't change the mind of anyone, only you can do that for yourself. I invite you to take the time I did to do your own investigation based off of the evidence provided by the great people of the world.

You owe them that much. Thousands of people lost their lives and thousands of others have risked their lives to bring the information to you.

I couldn't agree more. I too used to dismiss any questioning of the official 9/11 story as utter nonsense without so much as even looking at the evidence. The inability/unwillingness to entertain new ideas is a real problem in America.

a_no_n
- 06/16/2015 at 20:32

And what about the MAJORITY of experts who don't agree with the conspiracy theory?

Am I to presume that you know better than all of them?

How about the physicists and Engineers that have taken the time and effort to debunk all of these conspiracies? Are they to be ignored because your handpicked scaremongers say so?

Sorry but your comment is incredibly hypocritical when one looks at the bigger picture.

MOST experts say the official story holds water.

the silenced masses
- 06/16/2015 at 22:52

Any "expert" who says that an office fire can melt steel is not a real expert. Why are we supposed to accept that as the official version when it is physically impossible?

a_no_n
- 06/16/2015 at 23:32

But it is possible...It happens all the time...Steel only needs to reach a temperature of 500 celcius before it loses it's strength and starts to warp. that temperature is easily achieved by an office fire.

I've sat at a forge and watched a guy heat up steel with just coal...people have been doing that for centuries...

So...you know absolutely nothing about metal obviously...you've clearly never worked with it or watched someone bend steal by hand after heating it with nothing but coal, but you still consider yourself an authority on who is or isn't an expert?

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 14:38

"It happens all the time"

And yet other than on 9/11, no building has ever collapsed due to fire. Even buildings that were consumed by fires that burned much hotter for hours longer retained the structural integrity. But the towers with their isolated fires which burned for about an hour were able to collapse the like a controlled demolition.

You don't know what you are talking about, and like Fabien, you go out of your way to avoid the facts.

a_no_n
- 06/17/2015 at 16:18

LOL WHAT?

Buildings collapse from fire every single day!

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 16:48

Wow...you really are clueless. Name one other time an office tower, whcih is what are talking about, despite your desperate attempts to deflect, has collapsed.

It's such a waste of time arguing with you guys. Maybe it is time for the two of you to regroup and spend more time studying the official version of the events, so you will be better equipped at offering "debunking" arguments to discredit us "truthers". Although, as you already know, it's always going to be difficult to argue against facts and the laws of physics.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 17:52

I am not arguing for the official version. I am arguing for observed events against what was presented in the video above.

a_no_n
- 06/17/2015 at 19:32

what do you mean name one other time? They're so common they don't name them or number them.

Look for pictures of warehouse fires, most warehouses have metal frames supporting them, and most completely collapse from the top down after a fire.

The problem is i'm not arguing against facts and physics, i'm arguing against your fantasy world physics!

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 20:23

Warehouses? Are you serious? We are talking about high rise steel office buildings. There have been hundreds of offices fires, fires that have engulfed entire buildings and burned 10-20 times longer that the WTC towers, but did not collapse. According to what you are suggesting, all those buildings should have collapsed.

All you are doing is setting up straw man arguments and trying to deflect from the facts at hand. As I've already mentioned, it's a waste of time arguing with you two, because you have no idea what the official version is and you do everything you can to deflect from the facts at hand.

a_no_n
- 06/17/2015 at 22:46

What difference does it make, besides being ever more specific so that you can Continuously shift the goalposts?
Warehouses as I explained in my previous comment, are steel framed like high rise offices, i mentioned warehouses because the last building i saw burnt down was a warehouse, and it had completly collapsed.

Also it was a nice try but you're misusing straw man argument. A straw man argument is when you twist an opponants point into a different point and then argue against that instead...As i was giving a stand alone example i wasn't twisting your own words, or altering your argument in any way...so really i was just disagreeing with you, not as you so hilariously suggest building a strawman.
Lol, that's not what a straw man argument is...nice try though.

In fact what YOU are doing is building a straw man argument, because i didn't say it happens every time, just that it happens every day.

Rather than try to wriggle away and distract from the point i'm making why don't you try addressing it?

Ryvex
- 06/17/2015 at 23:09

It wasn't 'steel framed'. It was an entirely steel supported structure consisting of 800 tons of steel, with the vast majority on the center columns. At minimum, every column could support 3x it's own weight.

Maybe you should actually figure out what the facts are before you try to argue them. You seriously look like the craziest person I've ever seen. At least the people you call 'conspiracy nuts' are providing facts while you spew garbage about warehouses and claim it's a fact because you said so.

Also, physics. But you're too concerned with fairly tales than one of the oldest forms of science that is not open to debate.. because it's a proven fact. What happened was impossible, by any measure.

You'll never understand that though, because you're too busy suckling at the teet of the government story to inform yourself properly. It's going to be a really sad day for you when you finally realize all the time you've spent parroting misinformation like you're the smartest person to ever grace the Earth.

I'll repeat it again here:

Show me one paper in a scientific journal out of the thousands published, where one has been refuted.

Go ahead big guy, because that's the only proof that matters to any intelligent human being who doesn't live in a dream.

a_no_n
- 06/18/2015 at 02:43

"At minimum every column can support 3x it's own weight."

Yup, right up until the point where it's heated to 500 celcius, then it doesn't support jack.

"Maybe you should figure out the facts before you argue them."

Maybe you should learn what the facts actually are rather than making them up as you go along/

"You're too concerned with fairy tales."

I don't even know where to start...Considering you're the one arguing against recognised physics in favour of a tin foil hat conspiracy theory it's a bit rich you telling me I'M the one stuck in a fairy tale...You're projecting your own issues onto me!

"Show me one paper in a scientific journal out of the thousands published, where one has been refuted."

one what? you don't make that clear...i presume whilst you were foaming at the mouth and spewing rebel without a clue rhetoric you were too busy to get to an actual point.

Ryvexx
- 06/18/2015 at 07:43

Except that every single column in the buildings were not heated even close to that temperature.

Lets assume you're right. 90% of the columns are still perfectly capable of supporting a building. Also, the other 90 stories of steel below doesn't simply crumple like paper.

You must have failed out of gradeschool physics. I feel sorry for your stupidity.

Odd how you can feel sorry for my stupidity without even having a rudimentary knowledge of something as basic n this equasion as fire.

Also, the 90 stories below, crumpled when the other stories above crumpled onto them, having already fallen a massive distance.

This isn't your lego's we're talking about here!

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 23:39

He won't answer any question because he thinks we don't know what the official version is. What he doesn't understand is we are debating the version presented in the video and his affirmations. We don't even need to know the official version to doubt what was presented. He doesn't want to defend his affirmations and prove to everyone reading he is right, I have no idea what his goal is really, probably just argue.

the silenced masses
- 06/18/2015 at 13:33

It's so hilarious that you accuse me of shifting the "goal posts" while advancing your "warehouse" argument. If it doesn't make any difference, explain why none of the hundreds of other skyscrapers have collapsed from MUCH bigger, longer and hotter burning fires. You are doing everything you can to avoid answering that question.

You ARE misrepresenting my argument. While discussing offices towers, I said fire has never brought down a steel frame building. You took that out of context and turned it into a discussion about warehouses, which are NOTHING like skyscrapers, and proceeded to attack my argument based on something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Hence, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. And then you accuse me of "building a straw man argument" by trying to redirect the discussion back to the original topic.

Like I said, it's a waste of time trying to have a discussion with you

OkThen
- 06/17/2015 at 22:44

"what do you mean name one other time? They're so common they don't name them or number them."

Do you live on the Moon friend? In western society and likely everywhere else in the world, every single accident that happens is documented and stored for future analysis. Otherwise we would be ignorant cavemen never learning anything.

If I get a paper cut at work, I have to fill out a stack of papers. Give me a break, your stupidity is absolutely infinite. Your arguments are paper thin, and you sound worse than the dumbest conspiracy theorist to ever breathe.. but yet you sit here calling everyone else the same.

a_no_n
- 06/18/2015 at 02:50

Oh i see and you expect me to have all of that information (which isn't published by the way) to hand in a way that i can easily share it with you?

My arguments are paper thin, but any what if or what about on infowars...that's rock solid right?

It's a shame you refuse to hold the other side to the same standards as your own...If the lord and messiah Alex Jones says it it must be true, but anyone else, their sayso is worthless because...reasons.

If my arguments are paper thin then the arguments for the conspiracy are even worse...But of course you're not going to subject your own beliefs to that kind of scrutiny are you?.

Ryvexx
- 06/18/2015 at 07:43

Don't watch Alex Jones, I only listen to people with advanced degrees. I actually have subjected myself to the same scrutiny, and none of it has ever been verified by a majority of people or published in a scientific journal.

Congratulations on another strawman though

a_no_n
- 06/18/2015 at 14:37

None of what? It? What the hell is "IT" even supposed to be?

You're being so incredibly vague.

dewflirt
- 06/18/2015 at 12:06

Yet the truthers carry on doing just that ;)

dewflirt
- 06/17/2015 at 18:51

It's always about the fire, like neither building had an aeroplane flown into it at a gazillion miles an hour.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 23:51

Seriously, I agree that only the force of the plane crashes wouldn't have collapsed the building because if it did the collapse would have been immediate. The uncontrolled fires were the culprit in my opinion. The fireproofing in both towers was very deficient and further damaged by the plane crash, all that was missing was heat to deform the steel and the fires provided it as is clearly demonstrated by the collapses that started just above the plane crashes.

dewflirt
- 06/18/2015 at 09:10

I'm going for massive impact followed by uncontrolled fires. What I meant was that a lot of people blab on about fires not being able to bring down buildings and conveniently forget that fire was not the only only contributing factor. Also don't really understand the hoohar about the speed at which they fell, surely once one floor has collapsed, the weight of the floors above falling onto those below would smash them ? Not a fire expert or planes hitting skyscrapers expert , just attempting a bit of ordinary person thinking ;) Sort of amusing that so many people say that what happened is impossible, it happened to two separate building in one day. Sort of suggests it is possible ?!? :)

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 11:22

So far, in such circumstances, it's a 100% rate of collapse. :)

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 01:43

Which experts said that? Because you read it on a website doesn't mean experts said so. I've read many expert say an office fire can deform, creep and distort steel, I've yet to find one that says it can melt steel. A steel structure will collapse long before the steel reaches its melting point, steel doesn't have to be liquid to fail. At approximately 1100 °F, steel will start to fail.

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 14:41

The only problem with that is according to NIST's own findings, the fires burned nowhere near those temperatures. The fires were well below the point where they could "deform, creep and distort steel."

Arguing with people who don't even know the official version is a profound waste of time

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 17:28

A simple house fire can deform, creep and distort steel. How can you affirm the fires at the world trade center, who were certainly not lower in temperature than a house fire, could not deform, creep and distort steel? Forget your idea of the official version for a moment and tell me why you think what I write here is wrong. Are you saying the fires in the WTC complex were lower in temperature that a house fire?

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 20:30

The temperatures of the fires as claimed by NIST were not hot enough to create the pools of molten metal that NASA recorded, days, weeks and months after 9/11.

I'm sorry, but it is a profound waste of my time arguing with someone who doesn't even know what the official version is

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 23:20

Don't reply then. I can't find any evidence that NASA found molten steel at the WTC. A search for NASA Molten steel only leads me to 9/11 conspiracy websites. Where are the original records from NASA, which scientist saw these pools of molten metal? Which metals were they? I can't take what you say at face value, please point the actual evidence. When one is trying to prove a conspiracy, one needs evidence that stands scrutiny otherwise it can be dismissed in court as hearsay. No court would accept a line of text on a website as evidence.

the silenced masses
- 06/18/2015 at 13:41

I just did a quick search of "NASA heat imaging wtc ground zero", and the very first site that cam up, a 9/11 site, had the images, as well as links to the actual government documents.

You said couldn't find them and it's because you didn't want to find them. And the same thing can be said about truth of what happened on 9/11. You don't look for the truth, because you don't want to find it.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 16:48

Heat imaging is not actually proof of molten metal by NASA. What you are saying here is that they could identify which metal it was and its molten state examining heat imaging from 6500 feet and 13500 feet with a spatial resolution (pixel spacing) of approximately 6 feet (2 meters). What they are affirming is that there was heat, not that is was a huge volume of molten metal. They measured a maximum temperature of 1376.33°F in one spot which is definitely not the 2750°F needed to keep steel in a molten state (Other sources say it sometimes melt at 2500°F, still short of over 1000°F). How do you justify the affirmation of the presence of molten steel with recorded temperatures about half what is needed to melt steel? So definitely not steel as affirmed vehemently on many conspiracy websites and in testimonials in several videos, what other metal could it be that is used abundantly in a steel structure?

How could the temperatures be hotter than the actually fires that supposedly brought down the buildings, weeks after 9/11? That's the point. You can deflect all you want, but according to NIST, the fires didn't burn anywhere near those temperatures. And yet here you are making things up on the fly to fit the evidence to your argument, instead of basing your argument on the evidence.

You remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses I used to argue with when I was a teenager. You do everything you can to avoid looking at the subject rationally

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 23:19

From the NIST WTC Towers Investigation FAQ:

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of
jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high
as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly
weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point
where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

I am reading 1800 degrees Fahrenheit which is quite higher than NASA's maximum of 1376.33°F??? Where did you get your NIST temperatures from?

I am not making stuff up on the fly, I googled "NASA heat imaging wtc ground zero" just like you suggested which led me to the first result "Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001." from the USGS spectroscopy lab.

The area of the 8 hottest spots are between 0.08 square meter and 0.56 square meter according to the USGS spectroscopy lab report. I can't tell you what is releasing that heat as I have no idea of the content of all the floors of the world trade center. One thing I know though is that explosives do not burn for days. It also has to be something with considerable mass to retain the heat for several days.

On the fires, another source at MIT published this :

Preliminary results, based on approximate estimates of the
fire conditions following the crash of the planes into the WTC Towers and the initial damage caused by the impact, shows that the fires generated very significant heat release rates and the fire temperatures were likely to have exceeded 1000°C.

Have I not adressed your concerns rationnally with evidence both from NASA and NIST?

the silenced masses
- 06/19/2015 at 15:17

Congratulations on at least doing that much research! However, all you have done is reprint their version of events. What you have not done is look at their own evidence on which these claims are based.

Things to consider:

The simple facts of temperatures:
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) -maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires
burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating
(premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved --
particularly in the South Tower.

According to NIST's own findings the the steel was exposed to temperatures around 500F, or 250C. Again, according to NIST's own findings. Also, they offer no proof that the fireproofing was dislodged, that is pure speculation.

Another thing to consider. In the tests NIST performed to back up their claims, their finding do not support their conclusions. When steel beams were subjected to higher temperatures, for longer periods of time, they still did not weaken to the point of collapse.

Kevin Ryan has an excellent documentary on this subject. He worked for the company that certified the steel. He goes through the NIST report in a step-by-step, easy to follow manner.

Keep digging

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/20/2015 at 00:37

Ooops, that's a typical example of truncated and edited quotes, here is what NIST published in their final report (my caps emphasis) :

"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only
three columns had evidence that the steel reached TEMPERATURES ABOVE 250 °C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner
web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. ONLY TWO CORE column specimens had SUFFICIENT PAINT REMAINING to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250
°C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the EXAMINED COLUMNS REPRESENTED ONLY 3 PERCENT of the perimeter columns and 1 PERCENT of the core columns from the fire floors."

Scientifically speaking, they were right not to generalize these results given the very small sample.

I went a step further and read the scientific article titled :

Response of steel beam–columns exposed to fire
by V.K.R. Kodur , M.M.S. Dwaikat
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, United States

In the article, it is clearly demonstrated by several figures that an exposure of only 15 minutes to a high temperature fire causes lateral deflection of 4 inches and a mid span deflection of 3-5 inches on 22.5' steel beams.

Another interesting piece of information is from the paper titled An analysis of the global structural behaviour of the Cardington steel-framed building during the two BRE fire test

"It was found that local buckling of the bottom flange occurred
near the beam-to-column connection during heating, because
of tremendous compression stress at this point resulting from
restrained thermal expansion. Damage of the beam-to-column
connections was also observed, where bolts on the header plate
of the beam sheared, due to thermal contraction of the beam
during cooling"

So cooling is also a factor in restrained beams behavior after a short exposure to high temperature.

I think it's important to get scientific information outside NIST reports and conspiracy websites when looking to understand what really could have happened. These scientists that did research on steel beams aren't partial to WTC investigations.

It doesn't help that you talk yet again of melting. A steel structure doesn't need to melt to collapse.

"NIST did not generalize these results, since the EXAMINED COLUMNS
REPRESENTED ONLY 3 PERCENT of the perimeter columns and 1 PERCENT of the
core columns from the fire floors.""

NIST themselves stated this was an adequate representation on which to base their claims. If anything, the fact that they are trying to base their argument on such a low representation only further discredits their entire arguments.

Trying to argument that the length of time they were exposed to fire was adequate is an exercise in futility. NIST's own tests, which, as I mentioned, exposed steel beams to hotter fires for longer times, do not support their own claims. This was why they had to make the ridiculous claim, of which they had no evidence, that the fire-proofing was dislodged.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/21/2015 at 00:14

The fireproofing was already partially dislodged as presented by the professional that did the inspections for 10 years at both WTC towers before 2001. I've already covered that in another post but here it is again :

"FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS

BY ROGER G. MORSE
fireengineering dot com website
Another source not linked to NIST or conspiracy theorists.
ROGER G. MORSE is a member of the American Institute of Architects and director of Morse Associates, which focuses on forensic building investigation.

Excerpts :

"These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets."

"Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel"

"Fireproofing on joist-to-wall connections was also deficient. The long-span joists were supported by an angle seat welded to the face of the exterior columns. The fireproofing applied in some places was so thin that the angle seat, the shape of the bolts connecting the joist to the seat, and the bolts holding together the spandrel panels could be readily discerned."

There are several pictures of the poor state of the fireproofing with massive rust under it and it's completely missing on other pictures.

Do you know what the standard procedure to remove fireproofing is? Pressure washing and hand scraping. If you think a plane crashing into a building at 350 mph followed by an explosion that knocks off high-rise windows can't produce a force superior to that, I am done trying to reason with you. Fireproofing is made to resist fire, it's not an impregnable armor resistant to anything you can throw at it.

I am not argumenting for NIST, I am argumenting your affirmations and the nonsense presented in the video. Call me crazy but I tend to give more credibility to a specialist that actually saw the fireproofing a few months before the events and has visual evidence to support his claims than someone that writes assumptions on the internet.

the silenced masses
- 06/21/2015 at 14:03

Of course the plane removed some fire proofing, but it is pure speculation to suggest it removed all fireproofing to uniformly expose the steel.

There's so many other problems with this theory. It has already been established that the temperature were not hot enough, and did not burn long enough to soften the steel. But what you are forgetting is that only some areas were affected. The fire did not burn through the entire building, let alone the entire floors. People were able to make it downstairs, past the affected floors. So how did the affected areas suffer a simultaneous universal collapse when there is no evidence the fireproofing was universally dislodged, and we know that the fire did not burn evenly throughout?

This of course, leads to a much bigger question that NIST itself didn't even bother to try and answer. How the collapse of one small portion of the building could lead to the collapse of the entire building. After all, that vast majority of the building was structurally sound. And yet a very small portion of the building collapsing, for whatever reason, caused the rest of the building to disintegrate. It caused steel beam weighing thousands of pounds to shoot out sideways hundreds of meters and lodge into other buildings. It caused concrete to turn to dust as it was falling. A tremendous amount of energy is required to do these things. And all of this was from a low temperature office fire burning for a short period of time.

But we won't get into any of that stuff, since NIST didn't think it was important enough to explain.

At the end of the day, NIST shaped the evidence to back their conclusions, instead of looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion. If you have no problem with that, that's your prerogative.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/22/2015 at 00:36

Why would the steel need to be uniformly exposed to get raised in temperature, steel is a good conductor of heat. Also, in practice, you don't expose the whole length of a piece of steel you want to bend, only the part that actually needs to bend.

It has not been established the temperatures were not high enough to cause failure. It's been established that some steel beams didn't reach high enough temperatures that would cause them to lose enough resistance to charges. A vertical steel structure doesn't need to have all its parts fail to collapse. The failure only needs to happen in key parts for the structure to lose integrity and fail entirely.

Anyway, I am done, that discussion will never end and frankly I have better things to do than debate point by point the soundness or mistakes of the NIST report. It doesn't change the fact that the building were not taken down with explosives, which is a theory that has much bigger logic holes than what NIST presented.

the silenced masses
- 06/19/2015 at 15:31

A few more things to guide your research,

"NIST found no evidence that any of the steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, had reached temperatures exceeding 1,110ºF (600ºC).[35] Sixteen recovered perimeter columns showed evidence of having been exposed to fire, but even so, out of 170 areas examined on these columns only three locations had reached temperatures in excess of 250ºC (450ºF).[36] Moreover, NIST found no evidence that any of the recovered core columns had reached even this minimal temperature.[37] The startling fact is that NIST's own data failed to support its conclusion that the fires of 9/11 heated up the steel columns, causing them to weaken and buckle."

"NIST scientists estimated that on average the WTC fires burned
through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures (1,000ºC) in only about 15-20 minutes.[41] After which, the fires began to subside. To make matters worse for the official collapse theory, NIST also found that "the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible."[42] It's easy to understand why all of these facts are downplayed in the NIST summary report. Taken together, they are fatal to NIST's collapse model, which requires that high temperatures be sustained. Fires that subside after
only 15-20 minutes simply cannot weaken enormous steel columns and cause them to buckle. "

Jon
- 07/14/2015 at 08:55

Perhaps the heat came from the engines of the plane moving at subsonic speed at full throttle when it hit the building?.

Fabien L'Amour
- 07/14/2015 at 11:30

They are tiny areas of 0.08 and 0.56 square meters. There is no telling what could have happened locally to generate that heat without having taken samples. I don't think it has any link with a controlled demolition conspiracy that involves the use of super-thermite, a nuclear device or a directed ray weapon.

Jon
- 07/14/2015 at 15:10

These planes got multiple turbine engines, each of which can fill the size of a small house so I suppose that could be possible sources of ultra high temperature heat. Its metal bearings must have been fused by heat and impact.The metal shaft deformed. If turbines were still running at full speed, then I suppose mechanical friction can also generate that much heat.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:43

Impossible. Your talking about buildings designed like a mosquito net. Fire cannot drop them in a pile. Seriously, what is wrong with people...

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:42

Thermite was used Fabien. There is no debate. Your opinions are not based on fact. Fiction. Yes. Fact. Not even close.

SvenTheBold
- 06/23/2015 at 06:54

As to the specific detail of how temperatures after the collapse could be hotter than the original fires, that could be because of the massive amount of friction generated by the falling and compressing building materials. It's the same thing that happens when a gas nebula collapses; the gas heats up into the raging inferno of a star. It's also the same principle behind air conditioners; the coolness comes from the decompression of compressed fluid.

the silenced masses
- 06/23/2015 at 13:23

I never knew that a collapsing steel and concrete building shared the same principles and properties as a collapsing gas nebula. Thanks for clearing that up, it all makes sense now

SvenTheBold
- 06/23/2015 at 22:17

Not all the same properties, but certainly some of the same principles; yes, you're welcome.

the silenced masses
- 06/24/2015 at 15:31

It's amazing that a steel and concrete building is subject to the same gravitational forces as a collapsing nebula. It really makes you wonder why the entire city wasn't destroyed?

SvenTheBold
- 06/25/2015 at 08:54

The principle in question is that friction creates heat, and that the skyscraper's collapse therefore ought to generate an amount of new heat, if it is subject to friction.

Do you dispute this?

No, really though, tell me: how do you think it's even *possible* for a hundred stories of steel and concrete to grind up against each other into a massive mess on the ground *without* also heating up due to the friction between them? Manpower alone can make enough friction to start a stick on fire; why the hell would you think that a collapse this massive wouldn't noticeably heat the metal?

Yes, the collapse of a nebula follows this same principle of friction. No, there is no reason to postulate that the creation of heat due to friction requires star-like gravitation. The falling skyscrapers never created star-like temperatures anyway.

the silenced masses
- 06/25/2015 at 14:03

"the skyscraper's collapse therefore ought to generate an amount of new heat, if it is subject to friction."

Yes, if you are implying that friction created enough heat to melt steel and reach temperatures nearly 3x hotter than the fires themselves reached. In fact it's ridiculous you are trying to make this claim and compare a steel and concrete building to a collapsing nebulae. They are not even remotely similar

SvenTheBold
- 06/26/2015 at 00:54

I am absolutely implying that a skyscraper follows the laws of physics even when it's falling down.

I never said that the *result* of this collapsing skyscraper was even remotely similar to the *result* of a collapsing nebula.

What I said was that a collapsing skyscraper obeys the *exact* same PRINCIPLES, the exact same *laws of nature* as a collapsing nebula. And this is important, because it means that we can use obvious situations as a guide to understanding principles that happen everywhere. Because what I was trying to do is answer this question of yours:

"How could the temperatures be hotter than the actually fires that supposedly brought down the buildings, weeks after 9/11?"

...because it's quite obvious that you need your questions answered.

Tell me, do you know about the idea of gravitational potential energy?

Gravitational potential energy is the energy that an object has when it is moved "upwards" within a gravitational field. Falling water has energy -- we can use it to power our hydroelectric dams -- and the physics word for this energy is "gravitational potential energy."

All that gravitational potential energy in all that steel and concrete had to go somewhere. Where? A lot of it was lost to various kinds of friction. There was: 1.) the "normal" friction between sliding pieces of concrete and steel; there was: 2.) a certain amount of energy that went into various objects being compressed; this energy then dissipated as heat due to friction as the objects reexpanded: there was 3.) energy lost as a shockwave through the ground; this energy was lost as heat due to friction as the wave dissipated.

Some very small proportion of energy was in all likelihood lost to the earth itself. You may have heard, for example, that after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, that the earth's rotation changed by a few millionths of a second. 9/11 was not an event big enough to cause noticeable changes to the earth's motion. Most of the energy was lost to heat.

Because yes, physics happens in a collapsing nebula. Yes, physics happens in a falling skyscraper. Yes, physics says that a skyscraper's collapse should produce noticeable amounts of heat. And yes, I'm saying that the amount of "extra" heat observed is consistent with what we know about physics.

If you think this is ridiculous, explain why. Numbers would help. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

the silenced masses
- 06/26/2015 at 13:37

The gravitational forces that exist within a steel and concrete building are not the same that exist within a nebula. I can't understand why you refuse to accept this. You're the one spitting in the wind, trying compare apples to hand grenades.

A collapsing nebula forms stars and solar systems, do you know how much gravitational pressure that requires?

If you can provide me with numbers to show that the material within the buildings was subject to the same pressure from the gravitational forces that it takes to collapse a nebula be my guest.

Let's also point out that everything you are talking about is pure conjecture and has nothing to do with the official version of the collapses.

SvenTheBold
- 06/27/2015 at 20:35

Okay, let's start at the beginning.

The official version of the collapses is this:

Two planes hit the twin towers and started fires. Those fires were *just* barely hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse the buildings. After the buildings collapsed, the wreckage was much hotter than the fires that originally collapsed the buildings. You say that this is suspicious. I say this is not.

The reason I say this is not suspicious is because of the principle of gravitational potential energy. Imagine you are standing at the base of the Hoover Dam. The water way up high at the top of the dam above your head has gravitational potential energy. We know it has energy, because we can extract the energy out of the water by letting the water fall down a generator to create electricity. That's basic physics just like you would learn in any intro class.

So, when the steel and concrete of the Twin Towers fell, it had to be releasing its gravitational potential energy. The gravitational energy was first converted into kinetic energy, the energy of motion. But then all that falling steel and concrete hit the ground; its motion stopped, and its kinetic energy was transferred into other kinds of energy; into pressure waves, into compression, and so on. All that energy, which started as gravitational energy, ended up lost as heat.

I'm sincerely sorry I confused you by using a nebula as an example. I thought you were smarter than you are; that was my mistake. Even though it's completely true that a collapsing nebula does obey this same principle, a hydroelectric dam is the example I should have used, because it operates on a scale that is more equivalent to a skyscraper.

Please understand that I am simply trying to answer your question. I do not care whether you believe in the official story; it's just not true that the official story is inconsistent when it says that the tower wreckage stayed hotter than the tower fires. All I'm saying is that you should look elsewhere if you're trying to poke holes in the official narrative.

the silenced masses
- 06/28/2015 at 15:25

You really are delusional. Nothing you are talking about has any relevance to the collapse of the buildings. Everything you are stating is pure conjecture. Why not work unicorns and fairy dust into your theories as well?

"...when the steel and concrete of the Twin Towers fell, it had to be
releasing its gravitational potential energy. The gravitational energy
was first converted into kinetic energy, the energy of motion."

Gravity cannot collapse and destroy buildings as supposedly happened with the WTC towers. The energy from the collapse of the top floors, a very small portion of the buildings, is converted into the destruction of the floors below when it meets resistance, causing deceleration. There was not enough energy within the closed system to turn the entire building, the majority of which was structurally sound and designed with load redundancy, into mangled steel and powered concrete.

The resistance pushing upwards is at least equal to or greater than the force pushing downwards, which means it cancels itself out. Once the energy is converted into destruction, the collapsing portion comes to a stand still, long before the entire building is destroyed.

For you to speculate that the "energy, which started as gravitational energy, ended up lost as heat," is irrelevant, because the collapse itself defies the laws of physics. Also, the official version denies the existence of molten steel, despite photographic evidence and the eye witness accounts of countless people, including the governor and the mayor, so your attempts to explain how it came to be there through fantasy is pointless.

What all this means is that your unicorn and fairy dust theory is wasting my time and I'm not interested in discussing it any further

SvenTheBold
- 06/29/2015 at 07:56

"What all this means is that your unicorn and fairy dust theory is wasting my time and I'm not interested in discussing it any further"

So you're making the claim, the positive claim, that there wasn't enough energy in the towers to collapse them? Then show me your f--king evidence, you self-aggrandizing little shill, or else you're the one with unicorn and fairy dust stuffed up your ass. Your arrogance says a hell of a lot more about you than it says about me, and unless you have something more than insults to contribute to this discussion, I have no reason to let you do anything but wallow in the quagmire of your own brain-forsaken mind.

the silenced masses
- 06/29/2015 at 15:16

You have no clue what you are talking about and I'm wasting my time arguing to you. At least Fabien and anon tried to make rational arguments based on their knowledge of the facts. You on the other hand obviously know nothing.

Good bye

SvenTheBold
- 06/29/2015 at 22:12

A non-argument from a non-intellect. Quaint.

the silenced masses
- 06/30/2015 at 13:30

Says the guy offering fantasies for arguments.

SvenTheBold
- 07/02/2015 at 00:40

It's not the collapse, but your assertions *about* the collapse, that defy the laws of physics. You are the only one offering fantasies here.

the silenced masses
- 07/02/2015 at 01:57

You're arguing physics and don't even understand Newton's Laws of Motion. Get a life and leave me alone

SvenTheBold
- 07/02/2015 at 22:50

You're hiding behind vague statements because you don't understand physics enough to make any specific claims. I will call you out on your words as long as you keep speaking to me.

the silenced masses
- 07/02/2015 at 23:20

You win. You are the genius who knows everything. Now go get a life

SvenTheBold
- 07/02/2015 at 23:22

No. I'm not. I'm just someone, who knows something, something that you don't. Now go get an education.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:41

Your un-uneducated troll that doesnt have a clue about how buildings are constructed and designed. Or have a clue about fire protection and systems employed with them. When you get an education and practice engineering and related concepts for 32 years.., you can come back to the real experts and shoot me some numbers and we can go from there. Otherwise, your arse is blowing bubbles.

SvenTheBold
- 08/08/2015 at 08:49

I'm sure you have a lot of experience with arse-bubbles you arrogant shill. Come back when you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion, something more real than feigned titles and meaningless insults.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:13

Physics and metallurgy are not fantasies. They dont lie. Unlike the official story. Im an engineer Sven. I know what happened that day. Like a lot of people I work with. We all know. Some of us admit it publicly, most dont for fear of ostracism. Ill leave it at that.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:49

Your a total clown talking nonsense. I wish I could invite you to my office and show you and explain to you how you do not have the slightest clue about what your talking about. I wish I could show you drawings and explain them to you. But something tells me even then, you think your right. Seen a few hundred thousand like you in 13 years...Not a clue and spout Bs nonsense all day long about things you have neither the credentials or experience to talk about., Do carry on though, I love court jesters and their theories...

Jon
- 08/07/2015 at 03:29

It is not just gravity but the amount of weight that is falling plus the distance from the ground too. I guess if the weakened part of the building is in the middle, the weight of the upper floors plus the distance of over hundreds of feet made the impact great enough to crush the lower floors.

Gravity is an accelerating force which happens to increase the power of the impact.

SvenTheBold
- 08/11/2015 at 07:46

And as long as, when you call gravity an "accelerating force", you mean that gravity is "a force that causes acceleration," then I think we agree on what's happening.

As to the idea that the power of the impact is increased... well, power is a term with touchy technicalities. People often use it to mean force, especially in the context of impacts, but its technical scientific definition is "the rate at which energy is produced or consumed". Energy is defined as the ability to do work, and work is defined as the exerting of force over a distance.

Weight is just the amount of force normally exerted by an object due to gravity; that's why, when an object is in the air, it has energy; because it has the ability to exert a force over the distance it is capable of falling. For example, the water at the top of a hydropower dam exerts force as it falls to the bottom; we extract some of that gravitational potential energy as electricity, some is lost as heat, and the rest is converted into the kinetic energy of the water leaving the bottom of the dam; and if that kinetic energy, that ability to exert a force over distance, is directed downward, than the force of that kinetic energy is added to the force of gravity that hasn't gone away. It's exactly like how, if you've ever stood outside in a hailstorm, you know that the falling hailstones exert a lot more force on your body than the equivalent hailstone would if it were just sitting on you. (Also, yes, I'd assume you know this; I'm just trying to reiterate reality for the audience here.)

But when you say "gravity is an accelerating force which happens to increase the power of the impact", a more precise way to say that is: "gravity is an acceleration-causing force which happens to increase the force of an object's impact, making that impact force greater than the force of the object's weight alone."

Jon
- 08/12/2015 at 03:14

Gravity not only pulls you down as the lyrics of a song declares, but it magnifies mass to weight. Objects weigh heavier on Earth than in the moon for this reason. But inertia, momentum, and a lot more kenetic forces dynamically interact with gravity in the case oh WTC collapse.

SvenTheBold
- 08/12/2015 at 07:26

...uh, please don't tell people that gravity "magnifies mass". Gravity doesn't alter mass at all, what it does is exert the force that we experience as weight, a force that is determined by not just our mass but also by the mass of other objects near us, e.g. the planet we're sitting on. That's the better way of explaining why an object weighs less on the moon even if its mass doesn't change; because mass is a property of an object, whereas weight is an interaction between an object and its surroundings.

And even if I can trust that you understand physics correctly, your last sentence expresses any such understanding in highly imprecise English. Saying, "inertia, momentum, and a lot more kinetic fores" makes it sound like inertia and momentum are forces, which they're not: an object's momentum is just its velocity multiplied by its mass; and inertia is just a word for the physical property that the more mass an object has, the more it resists a change in velocity.

Jon
- 08/17/2015 at 02:42

Okay, let us apply basics you care to explain: If you ram a car to a parked truck, it will resist the movement better than when the same car bumps a trash can. Conversely using the same principles, a moving truck can crash a parked car but a flying trash can will at most dent it, right?

What do you think happens when you got two loaded jumbo jets plus a few upper floors falling off to the lower building structure? The combined mass of the falling objects will be greater than the ability of the standing mesh wire structure below to resist movement leading to crushing of the lower floors.

SvenTheBold
- 08/20/2015 at 07:37

Absolutely. We're on the same side, and as I alluded to before, you've convinced me that you understand physics. It's the way you expressed that understanding that I thought needed improvement, improvement that you seem to have made, since these words are fine.

I say this because the vast majority of crackpots are perfectly reasonable people, if perhaps slightly stubborn. They're people who have convinced themselves to apply passably good ideas in the wrong context. The only way to dispel these bad ideas is through words that are intuitively clear, but also rigorously true; we have to make it difficult for the person to continue misapplying their usually-already-correct ideas about reality.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:11

Its called nano thermite. End of my story for today.

SvenTheBold
- 07/13/2015 at 20:35

It's called evidence that nanothermite was involved in the towers' collapse. End of my story for today.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:46

There is lots of evidence Captain know it all. You can actually see it running down the channel rails in several videos. Of course you wouldnt have a clue what it looks like because im pretty damn sure youve never seen Thermite used in person. Unless of course that is some more credentials to add your ever impressive growing list of expertise's. The ones you make in in your head.

SvenTheBold
- 08/08/2015 at 08:47

It's interesting how you accuse me of giving airs to myself when it's you who claim to have an office.

Dawn
- 07/14/2015 at 02:21

He is probably one of those 9/11 commission Fraud, and not report, trolls who are paid to go out there, and still continue to attempt to deceive the people, as if we have not been deceived enough like this. If one wants to see the proof of molten steal, all they have to do is go to Utube and dig out some related vids. There, they will find plenty of 9/11 vids clearly showing not molten but over flowing liquid steal, burning 8 days and more after the blowing of the towers. Steal lava. No need for Nasa anything.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:06

There are pictures of it, several with backhoes pulling out puddles of molten steel...Try looking shill, they are there and many of them to see. But facts and pictures don't matter to you as we see for a while now. Shills argue until there is no one talking to you left to argue with...You have not a clue about one single word you've typed here. Your opinions are nothing short of nonsense. Try learning basic physics 101 and a smattering of metallurgy and then go and get a certification as an engineer, then you might get a clue...

Fabien L'Amour
- 07/13/2015 at 02:42

LMAO, how would a backhoe pull puddles of molten steel without melting and having catastrophic failure of its hydraulics, you are the weirdest engineer I ever met.

Ryvex
- 06/17/2015 at 22:59

The sad thing here, is you actually appear intelligent except your ignorance clouds that fact. All of the questions you are asking, are easily proved by simply reading up on the principles of physics, matallurgy, and architecture.

No, it's not a house fire. Houses are not required by code to have their entire contents fire resistant. The WTC had enough Asbestos in it to kill the entire world, which is done specifically for fire prevention. Buildings are created specifically to do the opposite of a chimney, and to not allow air to feed a fire. This is why the smoke is pitch black, there is an incomplete combustion happening.

You seem to be forgetting a key fact here. Even if the steel distorted or in fact melted, it wouldn't make a difference. The fires were not on the bottom floor, and by NIST's own admission, they only affected a single portion of the building, on a single floor. Every single support column in the towers could hold 3x their own weight. The secondary columns could support 10x their weight.
You would have had to cut every single support to cause the building to fall in perfect symmetry.

Physics dictates what happened is impossible. I don't believe in fairy tales. If you did a little research and spent less time arguing on a discussion board, you wouldn't even be here to begin with. The facts are there for you, go find them.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 07:03

Cut the columns? Only the links need to fail, as far as I know the columns were not a single piece of steel from top to bottom of the building but steel beams assembled together.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:05

Spot on Ryvex. Good post.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:04

Fabien is a paid shill my friend. Dont waste your time with physics and metallurgy. He will only rebut with absolute nonsense and anything to muddy the facts. People like this fool have been around for 15 years and it never stops. Be happy in the fact you are smart enough to see through the lies, and lies they are.

Ryvex
- 06/17/2015 at 22:47

What majority? Do you subscribe to any scientific journals? No? Well there's your answer. That's where intelligent people get their answers, because other intelligent people have to check their work to make sure it's right.

Show me one published scientific paper in a reputable journal where they refute another scientific paper on 9/11. I will throw my computer in the garbage and live a solitary life if you do.

That's not a joke either. I will literally do it, and film it, and admit defeat.

a_no_n
- 06/18/2015 at 02:45

I don't understand what your asking for, "Refute another scientific paper on 9/11" doesn't make any sense...I also can't help but think that you haven't read any of those journals either becuase you don't seem to quite understand how they work.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 06:04

What exactly is a scientific paper on 9/11? A scientific paper on a date makes absolutely no sense. Hopefully you aren't talking about the Journal of 9/11 Studies which publishes articles that can be peer reviewed by anyone with a keyboard.

slpsa
- 07/13/2015 at 02:02

I am an Engineer, with several certifications anon. And if you think they all agree with what your saying, Ill tell you now that anyone of them ive ever talked to, which is daily, they all to a person know these buildings were demolished. They all do not speak publicly because of people like you. and that is the straight up truth. People have been fired for speaking that truth, so they shut up. Is that a hard concept to understand.... I work for myself, and i post under a pseudonym...If I spoke this in my office, noone will fire me, but i might not get Government work because of my views...comprende sir.....

a_no_n
- 07/13/2015 at 08:31

If i take your word for it and assume you're not lying then you work with a bunch of irrational m*rons who don't know their jobs...yourself included.

No wonder you work for yourself...you should probably advertise that you believe in all this junk though so people know you barely think rationally when they hire you to build something.

People haven't been fired for speaking the truth, they've been fired because they've proven themselves to be completely irrational...A cause for very serious concern when you're talking about something like engineering...i know i wouldn't want to step into anything you've built if you don't even understand the properties of the steel you've been working with!

Why don't you try comprehending just how silly what you're suggesting is...that the world trade centre, all three buildings were magically laced with explosives without anyone noticing...it's ridiculous.

slpsa
- 08/02/2015 at 22:57

That is exactly what happened. Bottom line is this: buildings cannot fall at freefall and turn to dust almost everything in them without explosives. If you cant wrap your head around that, I suggest enrolling in an Engineering class and get your tickets and you might learn something more than the media and NIST and the Government tell you.

Or did they not cover how big and small buildings act differently in your engineering 101 class?

Perhaps you'd like to enroll in a physics course?

Simple Simon Says
- 06/14/2015 at 13:24

was all staged to cover up the trillions of dollars stolen that mostly went to fund the building of Israel and to turn the USA into a fascist state run by corporations, as one of them once said "competition is a sin". there was a coup in the 60's that started with the death of JFK, the last real president, what they tried in the 30's to do but was stitched up by a general they did in the 60's, the USA is now a fascist state.

If you want to try and tell a holocaust survivor that you are in exactly the same situation they were in then please feel free...just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously for it.

You know the number one reason why you don't live in a facist country?

Because you can come on the internet and say that without a secret policeman kicking your door in!

Greg
- 06/14/2015 at 06:51

Imagine for a moment that I am a less than honorable person and I own a piece of extremely expensive rental property that has been a target of terrorists in the past. Would I not contemplate situations in the future where my property is again attacked by terrorists in a "substantial" way? And would I not wonder if such an attack would render my property "UN-RENT-ABLE" in the future - therefore bankrupting me?

If I were a less than honorable person then perhaps I would make sure my property was well insured for a "total loss" situation. And then I would make sure that if terrorists ever attack my property in a substantial way in the future that my property becomes a total loss.

You have a fertile imagination. I'll need more than imagination to prove a conspiracy by the WTC owner to destroy buildings and kill thousands of people in the process.

CapnCanard
- 06/14/2015 at 15:58

lol... Wow, and you have proven beyond all doubt that you have a sterile mind, where no good thing can grow and nothing new can ever be learned.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 22:34

why because he doesn't just believe every little thing he reads on the internet?

You know all of this ridiculous junk has been debunked from every possible angle right?

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/14/2015 at 23:31

The 9/11 truthers remind me of a sect, no amount of scientific facts or logic will have them change their mind. Their conspiracy, which comes in different flavors depending whom you read, involve all kinds of people without an ounce of proof. All conjectures but it seems to suffice for them as proof of guilt. If they were the government, you and I would be labelled as conspirators, the rule of law would be a mere suggestion and we would end up in jail for denying their affirmations.

They come up with affirmations that are supposed to be the truth yet no secret evil government organization sends anyone to silence them. A government that is willing to secretly bomb the WTC and kill thousands but doesn't act on some guy in his mom basement. Use your imagination :D

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 12:51

That's pretty much how they did hings during the Salem witch trials wasn't it?

Ryvex
- 06/15/2015 at 19:50

This person proves exactly how insane society is. The only scientific facts are on the side of the people, not the government. If you had two brain cells working together, you would already know that.

But you're right, the thousands of experts and leaders of industry are lying for no reason other than to jeopardize their own career. Makes sense to me. No actual scientific evidence has been presented by the government, as you fail to understand what the word 'science' means. None of their evidence was presented to the public in a way they could find out how they came to the conclusion. This is the only way science has ever been conducted, except by the US government.

There is no such thing as "9/11 truthers". There are people with brains, and there are sub-human creatures like yourself who gobble up everything the mainstream media feeds to them and take the words of a single panel of people (popular mechanics I'm assuming , as they are the only 'debunkers') and quote it as a fact.

Of course they aren't going to go kill people who are telling the truth, all that would serve to do is incriminate them further. Are you really this brain dead?

I lose faith in this world more and more every day. What a sad time we live in.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/15/2015 at 20:06

Popular mechanics are the only debunkers, is wrong. The rest of your post offers nothing but a rant against me, the government, society and the world. You'll have to offer more than that to support your conspiracy. Calling people subhumans won't help for sure. Glad you aren't part of the government when you use such qualifications against people you don't agree with. Your post didn't help reveal the truth about 9/11, it helped reveal the truth about you.

Ryvex
- 06/16/2015 at 00:26

Really, you should go back to 5th grade and brush up on reading comprehension if that is the only information you extracted from my post. Selective reading maybe?

How about you explain to us why it is all of these experts are saying it happened, when there are a fraction of the people saying it didn't? If this was a conspiracy, wouldn't people be falling over each other to prove it was terrorists instead of a demolition?

Keep deflecting and pretending all the information people provide to you is a 'conspiracy'. Even funnier, is while you are calling everyone who opens their mind a 'conspiracy nut' .. you are sitting here claiming there is an even bigger conspiracy where thousands of random people from around the world have come together to create the biggest lie in history for no personal gain.

Deep, right? Try using your brain before you mash garbage into your keyboard, or keep replying and I'll be more than willing to knock you down a peg every single time.

I feel even more sad for the heroes who risked their lives to save people and are still fighting to get the truth out there despite the costs to their personal lives. You are a disgrace to civilization simply because you refuse to accept new information. Trust me when I say, no one is going to miss you. The world will actually be a much better place without people like you.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/16/2015 at 01:11

Why only a fraction of engineers and architect come forward to say it wasn't a demolition? Because they don't deem it worth their time to come forward to explain something that is an evidence to them.

I don't refuse to accept new information when it is valid information. What you provide is not information at all so I'll stop paying attention to it.

Why don't you come shoot me if the world will be a better place without me? You are verbally attacking people in a crazy aggressive sort of way and expect to be taken seriously. I didn't call you a conspiracy nut but your behavior made me change my mind .

the silenced masses
- 06/16/2015 at 23:18

No amount of scientific facts? How does science explain an office fire melting steel? The official version requires that we deny science, the laws of physics and the physical properties of steel.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/16/2015 at 23:56

There was no melted steel, there was incandescent steel which happens at much lower temperatures than the actual melting. In practice, virtually all solid or liquid substances start to glow around 798 K (525 °C) (977 degrees F˚), with a mildly dull red color, when no chemical reactions take place that produce light as a result of an exothermic process. This limit is called the Draper point.

There was melted aluminum but you can melt an aluminum can in a bonfire without difficulty.

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 14:11

Photographic evidence, hundreds of eye witnesses, including the mayor and the governor and NASA imaging disagree with you. The NASA imaging, in particular, shows the temperatures exceeded the melting point of aluminum, even days after they had been sitting under water. These temperatures were far higher than could have been achieved in a simple office fire.

As usual, your comments are filled with misinformation

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 17:37

Where the heck do you think the kinetic energy of 1 500 000 tons of rubble falling from that height went? In space?

farbertwo
- 06/14/2015 at 18:02

they lied about Iraq, and more Americans died there than in 9/11, so trusting the official story is a proven mistake.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 22:33

What does lying about Iraq have to do with anything?

Sure they took advantage of a tradgedy to start an immoral war, but that doesn't mean the tragedy was faked.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/16/2015 at 13:42

I don't blindly trust the official version. I watched footage and looked at hundreds pictures and read at length on the subject. It wasn't a controlled demolition for WTC 7 when you investigate the damage the debris did to it and the massive fires. But I can understand why some that only saw selected footage with a biased narrative, strongly edited interviews, truncated quotes and cherry picked pictures might think it might be controlled. It also helps to read the procedures and watch videos of controlled demolitions to understand the amount of preparation, manpower and equipment needed to take down a big building.

For WTC 1 and 2, I definitely don't understand how someone can think it was controlled demolition.

Because the official NIST report is not perfect doesn't mean other far fetched explanations are right. One good example of crazy explanation is Dr Judy Wood and her directed beam weapon that pulverized steel. When in an interview she is asked how it was done, she can't provide any description of the beam weapon, how steel turns to dust or any calculation of the energy needed yet asks us to believe she has the truth. She has a PhD but her theory makes no sense whatsoever.

the silenced masses
- 06/16/2015 at 23:15

Why isn't the NIST report perfect? It is their job to get it perfect so they can prevent it from happening again. This is standard practice, but they couldn't manage to do it for they greatest crimes ever committed on American soil, and you think that's credible?

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 00:31

Because it was made by humans and humans make errors. I assume you have a job, can you claim everything you do at your job is perfect?

the silenced masses
- 06/17/2015 at 14:21

What a ridiculous statement. You go out of your way to maintain your level of denial. This is the same government whose initial explanation was based a fictional structural design of the building, which made the ridiculous claim that the buildings had hollow centers. They reached their conclusion without basing it on physical evidence, because if they had looked at the evidence, they would have found that there were 47 massive steel columns in the center of the building.

And here you are, like a truly indoctrinated cult member, putting your faith an a government so incompetent that they would offer an explanation without any forensic study of the crimes scene itself. Like good flock member, you shrug your shoulders and say, nobody's perfect.

Whatever helps you sleep

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 17:34

I am not putting my total faith in the government, I told you there are errors. That doesn't mean the whole report is 100% wrong. I certainly have much less proof it was done deliberately with explosives.

CapnCanard
- 06/17/2015 at 00:22

Yes, and please keep in mind that in that same time period more people were killed by American Police forces than American solders killed in all the Bush wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and/or Yemen. 4700 war dead and 5300 citizens killed by police. That is the New World Odor and it does stink. Be sure to take time to thank the Project for the New American Century.

farbertwo
- 06/14/2015 at 18:00

the asbestos abatement bill was a game changer, every time they had to do maintenance they had to do very expensive asbestos removal and there was to be no end to it.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 22:32

So because you can imagine that scenario it's true?

Greg
- 06/14/2015 at 23:40

I remain wisely agnostic on this issue. Anyone who has biased their own mind with belief one way or another at this point in history is in danger of cognitive bias that clouds their thinking. Enough credible experts have spoken about their own concerns to warrant an agnostic approach.

When considering the possibility that the towers were brought down by demolition then the real question is - why?

All conjecture that suggests the government or the terrorists were responsible that I have heard or read seems highly unlikely to me.

But there are lots of reasons why the owner of the towers might want to see them come down in such a manner if the towers became compromised in a significant way. Put yourself in the shoes of the owner of a building capable of killing thousands of people if it becomes compromised.

This building was a target that terrorists had attempted to have fall over....the death toll if that had succeeded would have been triple what this was.

I could easily see an owner come to the conclusion that if certain things have happened to the building already then it must fall by demolition to save those that can be saved as well as end the suffering of those who will only die by fire. I could even envision an intelligent system within the building itself that makes that decision based on a criteria of loss of systems.

When one has great responsibility for the lives of people one becomes capable of odd things.

The government is not interested in exposing this sort of logic to civilians nor would they imagine that they could prove it if they believed it had actually happened. It is best left unknown for them.

I don't know what happened. But if the towers fell by demolition then the owner is the suspect not the government or the terrorists.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 00:09

I guess it depends on your definition of credible...i don't see anyone credible on the truther side, a lot of attention seekers, and a lot of people who make an awful lot of money by preying on the gullible nature of paranoid people, but no-one credible.

No, the real question isn't why, because to ask why you must first conclude one way or the other which directly contravenes your claims of "agnosticism". Be honest with yourself. You believe in this stuff.

Greg
- 06/15/2015 at 03:30

I'm wondering what kind of strange moderation exists on this comments page, since I see several of my comments have been removed from this thread.

As for your last comment a no n . Be honest with yourself. You don't like people who are agnostic, because it makes you look foolish.

over the edge
- 06/15/2015 at 03:43

Your comments were removed for accusing someone of being a "troll" multiple times. Do not accuse other of that or being paid. Keep that in mind as well as following the other commenting rules and posts will not be removed

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 11:44

I think it's because calling other people trolls and shills is forbidden on this site.

no what looks foolish is claiming agnosticism when you clearly think something else.

Greg
- 06/15/2015 at 17:34

What I find most amusing about your comments a_no_n is that anyone reading through your comments can quickly become aware that you haven't even watched this documentary. You don't believe the 7th tower came down by demolition - either that or you know it did and post here simply to antagonize people who seek to know what the truth might be. I personally don't know if the 7th tower came down by demolition because I don't have the science background to know for certain - so I remain wisely agnostic as I said. You on the other hand remain foolishly antagonistic and reveal your true nature here in spite of the rules governing posting that allow you to post your antagonistic useless remarks unfiltered.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 17:46

What i find amusing is your undeserved sense of smug superiority brought about by your claims to fence sitting when you obviously believe otherwise...Your interesting placement of the word truth is a good example of where your feelings actually lie.

Why do you people seem to be under the impression that the truth is going to just come to you?

Tell me, have you sought out any material claiming to debunk this stuff? I'm guessing you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be "Agnostic."

Greg
- 06/15/2015 at 17:59

Of course I have sought out material that attempts to debunk this stuff. Thanks for verifying that you didn't watch the video.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 18:24

I don't have to...none of this stuff is new, and none of it unexplained.

Greg
- 06/15/2015 at 18:53

People who comment on videos they have not watched reveal they have motives that are unsavory. And people who say that something they haven't watched contains nothing new reveal absolute stupidity.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 19:36

All of the stuff this Video talks about is the same garbage they've been spewing for over a decade.

I watched five minutes and was bored out of my skull, i zipped through it and saw nothing i hadn't seen a hundred times before.

the same interviews with people clearly suffering PTSD whose witness testimonies are unreliable for that reason.

the same attention seeking engineers who seem to thing their civil engineering degrees make them infallible.

the same recycled footage of the crash over and over again. with all the bits edited out that happen to show it's not all a big conspiracy... It's nothing new.

Absolute stupidity is giving credibility where it doesn't deserve to be.

You talk to me about unsavoury motives...when you're the one pretending to be sat on the fence whilst being a true believer...At least i'm wearing my opinions on my sleeve, not hiding them away like you are!

dmxi
- 06/15/2015 at 19:47

might i add the 'released' second footage concerning the pentagon?very doubtful a plane but who knows digital fallacies,right?as the second plane hit the towers there was a 'feeling' of a bigger picture which,by accumilation of speculations,is the core of all past,current & future debate .it is impossible to end due to the nature of curiosity & the loss of trust in corrupted governance (hence the comment numbers).in ten years time,believe me,the lines will be even more arduous.

People who are wise do wise things - which is what I have advocated here. I have advocated that people should attempt to be wise when considering this issue and when reading your comments. If a person acts wisely they will not become confused about your motives for posting here nor the content of your posts.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 19:37

calling yourself wise a half dozen more times doesn't make me reconsider.

If you were that wise you wouldn't need to constantly point it out to other people.

Ryvex
- 06/15/2015 at 19:36

Really? So the thousands of physicists, structural engineers, demolitions experts, fire experts, military experts, historians who have documented every case in the past where the US government has committed these same types of atrocities are not credible?

The janitor who worked in the towers for 20 years and risked his life to save hundreds of people including an entire team of firefighters who regard him as a hero. A man who was given the highest civilian honor, and yet still wants to tell the truth. Not credible?

The Goverment side isn't credible. They scooped up every piece of evidence and denied any investigation save for their own contracted companies. Seriously, do some f--king reading before you make yourself look like a drooling halfwit. I'd say it's not that hard to put information together, but then you look at the state of the brainwashed USA and all you can do is bang your head on a solid object.

It's terribly sad, I've watched, read, and investigated every aspect of what took place there. You are making your judgement off of a single documentary, what a great contribution to society you are. Just do us all a favor and hold your breath until you see the light.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 22:31

thousands? try dozens.

In an action movie world your assumptions would be correct, but in the real world where people have severe memory issues around trauma even the most heroic of people isn't always a good witness. The human mind is a fragile thing.

Of course they scooped up every bit of evidence it was the middle of new york city! they couldn't just leave it all there.

I love that you can call me a drooling halfwit for not blindly believing the single most ridiculous conspiracy of the 21st century.

Let me also alter your final paragraph for accuracy.

It's terribly sad, i've watched read and investigated every aspect of what took place there *that supports my preconcieved notions*.

CapnCanard
- 06/15/2015 at 03:46

There is that monkey on his back called asbestos. Removal of asbestos would've run into the hundreds of millions and Silverstein's lease was in the same price range... and yet magically after the towers disappeared he walked away with nearly 3.5 BILLION. Yeah, now that is great pay if you can get it. Shock and awe indeed...

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/15/2015 at 22:07

You seriously think Travelers Cos., Zurich American Insurance Co., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Co., Industrial Risk Insurers and Royal Indemnity Co. paid out that amount without properly investigating if there was a conspiracy or fraud?

CapnCanard
- 06/15/2015 at 23:34

LOL... In a perfect world you would be correct. And I hate that I have to be the one who tells you, but this isn't a a perfect world. Far from it. You will note that there are an inordinate number of grifters, conmen, racketeers, and conspirators in the business world.(and they like to think of themselves as sharks) Many of them are lauded as champions of finance and magicians of the Corporate boardroom. These people are regarded as bastions of honesty and trustworthy. And notice how first among them are the Clowns of Wall Street. Hell, they even have a mascot who comes complete with his clownish orange tan and a poorly fitted rug. And the amount of money made off this little enterprise dwarfs the worth of those who suffered the most. The Airlines are just coachmen. The Insurance Companies are just like old school protection rackets. And those Banksters finance the well trained primates forever busy at workstations while they write the rules, laws that controls them all. After all we don't have wars to save freedom loving people, we have wars to gain control of scarce resources in order to make the freedom loving people accept that they will soon be living the rest of their lives in indentured servitude, "Shut-up and keep pushing the boulder Sysiphus!" It is like monopoly for adults and when the dirty dealing starts they just shoo us away. It is all FUBAR.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/16/2015 at 01:22

I can't swallow that the second largest insurance company in the US and the largest insurance company in Europe wouldn't have fought teeth and nails not to pay and get the schemers in jail if there was credible evidence it was a conspiracy.

CapnCanard
- 06/16/2015 at 16:05

lol The major, and most powerful, reason most people accept a truth is because others have already accepted the story. It is social acceptance. This is how faith based religions, nationalism, and racism works. No need to examine evidence, just accept their rationale. Ultimately business(very much like war/conflict) is a tactic, or option, to control trade. Unlike banks, the insurance companies just aren't as powerful as banks. Nearly all of them are usually owned and controlled by banks and they do what banks tell them to do. Any way you slice it there is no happy ending

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/16/2015 at 16:27

You are not explaining anything, you are adding multiple layers of global economic conspiracy to explain an event that is supposed to involve the WTC owner. I can add another layer too : the bankers are not humans but evil beings from another dimension.

Does it provide evidence for the first conspiracy? No. Do I provide any proof of my assertion? No. Should it be accepted without evidence because I make the assertion? Definitely not.

a_no_n
- 06/16/2015 at 20:34

that's the tactic with these conspiracy theorists, the moment you untangle their web of nonsence they just throw another one on top of it and pretend you haven't just completly dismantled their conspiracy theory....no evidence required if you can say "what if".

CapnCanard
- 06/17/2015 at 00:07

lol... Try to keep up! The official story is the chosen CONSPIRACY that you've swallowed whole without examination presumably because it is the official story.

And no, I don't need to provide a conspiracy story. We only need examine the hard evidence of the collapse of three towers. Need I remind you to never forget that all 7 WTC buildings were destroyed on that same morning, when no such similar occurrence in a period of 8 hours had ever taken place before, or since, anywhere in the world to one single building let alone 7? Never. That was shock and awe baby. If the official story had any credence then replicating it would produce the same results. Would you be willing to place wager?

But to the point: the collapse of three heavily fireproofed towers is just one of many red flags. The speed of the collapse was freakishly impossibly fast. Ask a good quality physicist or engineer(though understandably, most may not want to talk about it since they may have a real life). I bbelieve that something was amiss, or we could just sheepishly accept the governments story and promise to never question any anomalous event that might possibly send your children off to war. Well, at least you are thinking of yourself. That a boy, Fabien...

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 00:28

It never happened before, so? What are you talking about with your replicating it proposal? Who in their right mind would fly 2 planes in 2 110 story buildings in a downtown district to replicate that tragedy!?!?

It's been demonstrated that the impact of the planes sheared the fireproofing on columns and trusses. The speed of the collapse was slower than freefall as clearly demonstrated by the debris that fell faster than the main tower. Did you expect it to take 1 minute to collapse? If so, why?

wow... literally wow... Basic physics: an aluminum plane cannot shear off steel columns. That is physically IMPOSSIBLE. However the exact inverse is true, in other words a STEEL plane could shear off ALUMINUM columns.

Here is your massive problem: Steel is too heavy and not used in significant quantities to make jet planes. ALL JET AIRLINERS have an aluminum skin about 1/13th on an inch thick. If they hit steel columns at a top speed at sea level of 350 mph then it is like an aluminum soda can hitting your car door. i.e. it won't penetrate into your car interior but it will be a hunk of crushed aluminum. BTW, the planes can't be flown at even close to 450 mph at sea level with much accuracy. They whole plane would begin to shake and shimmy like in it does in hard turbulence. Very dangerous and makes for an incredibly inaccurate flight path..

If your aren't satisfied then try an aluminum bullet shot into a steel I-beam and you will get the same result. i.e. the aluminum bullet would shatter into thousands of pieces and the I-beam would barely be scratched. Reverse that with a steel jacketed bullet and an aluminum door, hence the aluminum door has a gaping hole. Equal and opposite reaction. Super simple physics.

I am certain that this messes things up for everyone and that is fuggin' hilarious! And the best part about it? It's not my problem.

Pleasant dreams...

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/17/2015 at 03:09

What? I said it sheared the fire insulation on the columns and trusses, not the columns. It's your problem if you can't read. Aluminium flying at 350 mph is perfectly capable of shearing a sprayed coating of thermal insulation.

"Fireproofing" is the name commonly given to fire-resistive coatings applied to structural steel components of high-rise buildings to protect them from the heat of a fire. Fireproofing is a critical fire safety feature of steel high-rise structures because steel begins to elongate between approximately 800°F and 1,000°F, temperatures easily reached by normal residential and commercial contents fires. Building codes require its utilization as well as its proper application. Fire codes require its constant maintenance.

For more information and pictures, google "FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS. It's an article by Roger R. Morse who investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000.

Understandably, you are tired which explains your hilarious reaction, I'll give you a pass on that one. See you after a good night sleep.

CapnCanard
- 06/17/2015 at 18:06

Well you need not resort to insults and derision. In order for the plane to shear off asbestos fire proofing it would have to penetrate to where the asbestos is located, on the interior core columns. Given the accepted conspiracy theory, the Airliner, after having expended most of it's momentum/power in the explosion, crash, fireball, collision, bang, boom, and "Shock and Awe" wouldn't have had enough momentum remaining to do as your Government shearing theory insists.

Having seen many productions, the government explanation is just another untested and unproven theory without any physical examination of the evidence.

How they pulled this off is a mystery. And there is one thing I know with absolute certainty, they won't investigate themselves.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 00:05

mmm, so the plane didn't break apart and pieces flies all over the place and the explosion didn't produce a ball of fire that went straight through the building and could dislodge a thin layer of mineral wool, asbestos and gypsum? It was only strong enough to blast off the windows on opposite sides of both buildings, not a thin layer of insulation? I think we saw different videos of the plane crashes.

CapnCanard
- 06/18/2015 at 01:39

Yes, and the plane didn't break apart, it disappeared... like magic! lol and thanks, glad to hear that you have no objections. The issues you raise are all very important and worthy of an actual investigation. Hope to hear that you keep up your support for an actual unbiased, impartial investigation that is open to the public, and all done by professional engineers, unlike the bought and paid for professional politicians of the 9/11 Commsson. Thanks..

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 04:36

The planes disappeared? Hell no, they exploded. I recommend you watch a few jet planes crashes on youtube to see how they have the bad tendency of exploding when they crash on the ground. I see no reason to think they wouldn't behave in a similar way on impact with a steel building.

What good would another investigation financed by the government be? The deniers say the government are the conspirators, whatever the conclusions, they will say it was manipulated unless it comes exactly to the conclusion they support.

whole2th
- 06/18/2015 at 00:13

Maurice Greenberg of AIG The fix was in.
Problem with aluminum cladding (addition to the asbestos abatement).
Silverstein raised rents and insured the loss of future rents.
Sufficient evidence exists to bring indictments, make arrests, interrogate and bring to trial over 100 key suspects.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/18/2015 at 00:20

That is not evidence of a conspiracy and/or controlled demolition. No chance what you stated would be considered a proof of conspiracy in court. Obviously not sufficient evidence for the judicial system as I have not seen a single arrest but feel free to communicate your evidence to attorneys and start the process if you are that confident. If you say it exists, it means you saw it all so it's really not hard to communicate it.

I'll watch the news for over 100 indictments soon to follow.
It will be interesting to follow the trials and finally get undeniable proof that it was really a conspiracy. Thanks in advance for putting an end to all the speculation.

farbertwo
- 06/15/2015 at 03:59

asbestos abatement was a real problem, and it wasn't going away, just another factor.

Ryvex
- 06/15/2015 at 19:29

Very well written, though you are lacking some evidence on why exactly the owner would want to bring his own buildings down. It's well documented that there were quotes given on the price of restoring the towers, which I won't pretend I still remember. It's a substantial figure, much larger than it would cost to bring down the towers himself and rake in the insurance money to construct a brand new tower.

The asbestos situation in the WTC was dire, and the building would have soon become condemned as they couldn't actually afford to remove the vast amount that was present in every part of the building, around pipes, in the walls, and as floor tiles.

TomazZzz
- 06/16/2015 at 17:13

So you haven't heard that it was ensured for this few weeks (maybe months, don't remember now).... You did NOT hear that under the law that was passed a bit before that 9-11 the owner would have to remove all asbestos from the building?? and since it was built in such a way - the removal would be almost as expensive as demolition of it??
Obviously you did't. Read more.. lay off hollywood sagas and read.

farbertwo
- 06/14/2015 at 05:37

I have not heard a theory behind the collapse of building 7 that makes any sense, either our nation is doomed because it is ran by terrorists, or huge buildings collapse onto themselves for no good reason, not a good answer either way.

Summon your courage. There is no good reason you need to be frightened. Most of what we know is fantasy that supports the premise of our political masters and their economy. Those in power don't like it when we question their story.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 22:35

says the person clinging to a ridiculous fantasy so he can pretend the universe is secretly controlled by something other than chaos.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 22:34

The only difference between the two is how much carbon is in it.

Steel weapons were the norm since Roman times. Iron not treated into steel is too soft to make a weapon or armour from on it's own.

pwndecaf
- 06/13/2015 at 20:47

We could easily test this theory by flying a similar plane into a similarly constructed building located in a country we don't like so much. Plenty of countries to choose from, but it might be hard to find a building with such a solid core. Still, if if doesn't bring down a lesser building, it should tell you something.

Ugh, the same tired BS...Over and over and over again. No matter how many times you debunk it it just keeps coming back from the dead.

There were no explosives in the WTC. No trace whatsoever of them has been found, and to counter the point that they fell "non-spontaniously" can somebody please explain to me where or when ANYONE ever saw another building like the WTC collapse? I'll save you all some time, the answer is NEVER.

All of these "Experts" waxing lyrical about how you would expect a building like that to fall are talking out of their backsides because nobody on earth has any other point of reference for something on that scale...it's attention seeking BS!

Finally If you don't think Jet fuel burns hot enough to effect steel, please explain to me how ancient blacksmiths were able to forge weapons and complex suits of Armour out of the stuff with nothing but coal and a hammer!

No. All of that is incorrect. Unexploded thermite was found in huge quantities in the dust at Ground Zero. Steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. Kerosene, which is what jet fuel is, burns at very low heat and because these were essentially open air fires, the temperature could not have been in excess of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. That leaves a credibility gap of 1,550 degrees Fahrenheit. You also have to ignore the testimony of people in the towers who heard numerous explosions going off BEFORE anything hit the building and numerous further explosions after. The only way the steel could have melted would have been if it was put in a blast furnace or if thermite was used. The blast furnace is out of the question so that leaves thermite. Thermite reaches a temperature of 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit in seconds. And this matches the descriptions of eyewitnesses who escaped the towers and survived that they saw 'concrete reduced to ash in seconds'. Think about it: if low temperature fires can melt steel how do you cook with steel pots on a stove? And you can carry out a simple test. Pour some kerosene on a concrete path and light it. Observe what happens. The kerosene will evaporate and quickly burn away and the concrete will be completely unaffected, apart from a black smudge. That huge white cloud that chased people down the street is called 'pyroclastic surge' and it is usually caused by the explosion of a volcano when the intense heat melts rocks. Do you believe that kerosene can melt rocks? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.The way the buildings came down gives the game away entirely: there is no way that a building can fall through space at free fall speed unless explosives are used. Sir Isaac Newton worked it out a long time ago and the laws of physics don't change because some corrupt and evil politicians want them to:
"All objects (regardless of their mass) free fall with the same acceleration - 10 m/s/s. This particular acceleration value is so important in physics that it has its own peculiar name - the acceleration of gravity - and its own particular symbol, g." All three buildings that collapsed came down at free fall speed. Not only that, when a building is demolished and comes down into its footprint it has to be done with great skill, the explosions are timed at go off in a precise sequence, floor by floor, which prevents the building from bulging- this would cause it to topple. None of these buildings toppled they came down in the manner of a demolition. This means they were demolished - i.e blown up.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 04:58

*Sigh*

This has all been debunked for years.

The "Thermite particles" you're talking about can be found in literally thousands of things, not just Thermite.

Steel may melt at how ever many degrees, but it doesn't need to melt...Steel loses it's structural stability at a mere 500 degrees celcius...Hence why Medieval and Roman blacksmiths could make weapons and armour out of it with nothing more than coal...anyone with even a most basic understanding of metalworking can tell you this. Steel does not work the way you think it works.

Testimony is terrible as a source because human memories get corrupted over time. You'll notice that no recordings have these explosions you mention, explosions which by the way would have been heard clearly by EVERYONE in a ten mile radius.

All of your assumptions are based on a laughable understanding (or rather lack thereof) of the topics.

Nothing you're saying is new...it's all been debunked for over a decade.

CapnCanard
- 06/14/2015 at 15:52

;) Agreed, and it is much more difficult than the debunkers want to comprehend. The official story is only a public relations story to hold up the house of cards with a foundation of sand. But in their defense, pretending to understand is an absolute requirement of those who support the official story. So good on you, you are well on your way!

pwndecaf
- 06/14/2015 at 16:10

Sort of biblical, isn't it? Faith is required - science is irrelevant if it doesn't fit the narrative.

farbertwo
- 06/14/2015 at 18:05

none of it has ever been debunked.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 22:24

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you pal but each and every single one of these points has been thoroughly debunked.

farbertwo
- 06/15/2015 at 01:47

never once

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 02:15

Stick your fingers in your ears and pretend all you want. the only person you're fooling is yourself.

Neil GPops
- 06/14/2015 at 05:29

Toni: Anon is a troll. Let's not waste our time on him/her/it.

over the edge
- 06/14/2015 at 06:04

Do not Call others "troll" . This will be your only warning

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/14/2015 at 11:52

"The yield strength and elastic modulus of the high strength steel and mild steel test results at elevated temperatures have been compared. It is shown
that the reduction factors of yield strength and elastic modulus of high strength steel and mild steel are quite similar for the temperatures ranging from 22 to 540°C, but this is not the case for temperatures greater than 540°C"

"It is also shown that the elastic modulus predicted by the American, Australian, and European standards are generally unconservative for the high strength steel test results obtained from transient-state tests"

"Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The SMALL RESIDUAL STRENGTH then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C" (Lawson & Newman 1990)

A Jet fuel fire can produce temperature of 815 degree Celsius. An average house fire burns at 590 Celsius which is sufficient to deform and reduce the strength of steel. When plastics or other petroleum based products burn, temperatures can reach as high as 650 Celsius.

"All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C steel retains approximately 60% of its room temperature yield strength, and 45% of its stiffness. At high temperatures, steel is also subjected to significant thermal elongation, which may lead to adverse impacts, especially if it is restrained. It follows therefore that one would expect that structural steelwork which has been subjected to high temperatures would exhibit signs of this in the form of distortion and buckling." Source : Fire damage assessment of hot rolled structural steelwork

Neil GPops
- 06/14/2015 at 04:12

Anon: There are many explosives that don't "catch fire". And how is it possible to break the law of physics and have 100+ floors fall FASTER than free-fall. But you'll refute the obvious because I realise you're a troll.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 04:45

So what? That still doesn't make the whole thing any less ridiculous.

THIS attitude of yours is exactly what i'm talking about...you have absolutely zero frame of reference to compare with and surmise that those buildings didn't fall naturally...There never ever being another event similar enough to compare it to. So you sat there telling me it didn't fall naturally is BS. There's no way you could know. You have no right to sat it breaks the laws of physics because there's nothing you can compare it to.

You've just been told that by someone who's trying to sell you a book and your too gullible to question it.

Of course i understand that your ego and paranoia doesn't allow you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong...instead you have to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so purposely and out of sheer spite...it certainly beats accepting your own fallibility.

Neil GPops
- 06/14/2015 at 05:27

Anon, you doth protest too much. You give yourself away. You need facts? A frame of reference? Here's one and I'll state it again for you: how can WTC2 fall in just over 8 seconds, ie faster than gravity would pull a steel ball down?

It can't.

That's a fact of physics for you. You know, the stuff that makes the planet work - a true frame of reference.

So I'm saying something brought down the towers and it wasn't burning kerosene in the buildings. Demolition is only PART of the answer because even that doesn't create a sucking effect to beat gravity, does it?

So first of all, let's get this acknowledgement from you -
It couldn't possibly be a fire-then-collapse scenario.

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 13:07

Your "Fact of physics" is no such thing, because as i've already mentioned you have nothing to compare it to. The other WTC building doesn't count because it's the same event!

The building also took longer than eight seconds to fall...I don't know where you got 8 seconds from but it isn't correct.

The one thing you're right about is that it wasn't just kerosene...all the burning office equipment, computers carpets, wood and paper in the buildings added up as well. That kind of stuff can easily burn hot enough to weaken steel, especially for the hours it was all burning for.

When you try and insist to me that the building "Didn't fall naturally." i'm laughing because you're talking out your backside.

I'd love to acknowledge your story for you but i'm afraid it's all nonsense.

Fire then collapse is EXACTLY what happened.

Perhaps you should see my other comment below, a detailed explaination of just what it would take for "teh gubmint" to wire up all three buildings with explosives without anyone noticing and just how ridiculously impossible it would be to achieve without anyone noticing.

Your conspiracy theory falls flat on it's face at every step.

PieMan
- 06/15/2015 at 11:03

no point of reference you say ? I`ll give you a point of reference my friend. Go up top the highest skyscraper you can find and throw an apple and count the seconds it takes for it to reach the ground. (yes there is a reason for why I am using an apple in my example though I do not expect you to understand why). Even if jet fuel would ... utterly pulverize steel ... that still would not explain why the buildings collapsed ... because there is not enough jet fuel in a plane to fill up the entire skyscraper to reach the important steel. If jet fuel would be soo damn efficient at collapsing buildings like that people all over the world would be using it instead of months of preparations for controlled demolition and expensive explosives .... think about it...

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 16:07

several problems with that.

1, so what, dropping an apple off a skyscraper doesn't even come close to proving anything...last i checked buildings weren't apples. You're misunderstanding what terminal velocity is!

2/ there doesn't have to be enough jet fuel to burn all the way through, the banks and banks of offices all packed with paper, wood, cardboard and plastic are more than enough.

Neil GPops
- 06/13/2015 at 17:33

Apparently, the local port authority insisted the building had demolition explosives built-in so that when it's useful life ended they
could demolish more safely.

yeah...apparantly, what if...seems to be all any of these theories are based on.

CapnCanard
- 06/15/2015 at 03:20

The difference is certainty. He is uncertain and you are completely convinced and certain of the story you were told and it is a story without evidence. I am unconvinced that the official story has any legitimacy whatsoever as it has far too many holes, and sloppy thinking.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 12:28

The other explaination is nothing but holes.

It's not even one conspiracy it's dozens rolled into one and it changes depending on who you ask.

It also means that George W Bush was the single greatest mastermind in the whole entire world, that he was able to convince thousands of people with secret agent skills to wire up three of the worlds most well observed buildings with explosives, and he was able to do all of that without saying something stupid and blowing the whole thing.

Is the government blameless? No of course not. they knew something was going to happen and did nothing, probably through sheer incompetence rather than malice.

When I look at the bush administration, I see a pack of the least qualified mouthbreathers in political history, stumbling without care or grace from one crisis into the next.
Their reactions (the patriot act) were hysterical knee jerk reactions.

The only malicious thing i think that administration did was to take advantage of the tragedy so that Bush could clear up the personal family business and one up his father by doing what Bush Sr wasn't stupid enough to try and attempt. (conquer Iraq)

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/14/2015 at 03:28

Embedding explosives in a building is a ridiculous idea. Imagine what happens if there is a fire. The North tower would have come down in the 1993 bombing if that was true.

Neil GPops
- 06/14/2015 at 04:23

Fabien: So how exactly did WTC 7 come down? No jet fuel there, was there?

a_no_n
- 06/14/2015 at 04:59

there's video of burning debris from the other towers hitting it.

CapnCanard
- 06/15/2015 at 03:13

WTF? Okay, please name said video because that would change a great deal, but I've seen most videos and I didn't see any other debris. At all. So, you still have some splain' to do.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/15/2015 at 07:33

Look for WTC 7 fires and south side hole on youtube.

a_no_n
- 06/15/2015 at 12:15

First of all, thank you for actually asking a reasonable question!

To answer it I googled "Video of debris hitting tower 7" and was taken straight to a youtube video called: " 9/11: Caught on Tape: WTC Building 7 Damaged by Debris from Twin Towers Collapse (Updated) (WTC 7)"

It clearly shows the point where the north face of the tower is struck by a huge piece of tumbling debris.

There are lots of things like this. For example when tower 7 fell, about ten or twenty seconds beforehand the penthouse collapsed into the building. it did that because the fires inside had hollowed out the building making a void for the penthouse to fall into. This pretty much proves that there were no explosives used, if the building were demolished the whole thing would have fallen at the same time.

The reason you haven't seen these bits are because people like Alex Jones edit them out of the videos they show you...Because it doesn't fit the narrative that he has built a multi million dollar career out of.

CapnCanard
- 06/17/2015 at 01:40

Watched it and it is possible, but given said evidence then I suppose it is also possible that Santa Claus actually came down your chimney on Xmas. Some still photos and smoke is not enough "evidence" for a court of law and far less than what is required for reliable technological or scientific investigative exploration. Sorry but it just isn't convincing.

a_no_n
- 06/17/2015 at 02:33

What do you mean it's possible? It's right there, in much better quality than the grainy nonsense the conspiracy theories are built on.

That's not smoke, that's burning debris tumbling from one building into the next!

You just simply aren't holding both sides to the same standards, you expect the impossible from one side and will accept anything from the other.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/14/2015 at 11:37

Structural failure due to damage from the main towers debris plus fire that raged for several hours.

CapnCanard
- 06/14/2015 at 15:41

i.e. magik! Good magik, eh?

CapnCanard
- 06/14/2015 at 15:43

Yeah it is. But if a capitalist could make an exponential increase of pure profit then what more rationale would he need?

farbertwo
- 06/14/2015 at 18:07

then their plan would have worked, it would have actually been successful. wow, not thinking, but I guess that's the point.

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/14/2015 at 19:17

Nope, no building would pass a High-Rise fire code inspection if explosives were built in the structure.

walterr44
- 06/13/2015 at 16:43

"controlled demolishing?" It takes months of planning and many workers working all over the building. there is no way that could be done without dozens of people noticing.

Let's look at what would need to happen for this ridiculous conspiracy to take place.
First you have to move several Tons of explosives through New York City, then you have to open up the walls on every floor to get access to the support beams, then you have to put everything back.

So already that's four teams of people, Drivers, Demolitions experts, builders, a camera crew and painter/decorators (to get it all back exactly the way it was).

It would have to be done quickly, overnight in fact. So that means you need large crews doing all of this to make the job happen quicker. there's no getting around that.
You're talking at least a hundred people right there...assuming it's just the one crew doing all three buildings which is unlikely since as we've noted it apparently happened overnight, so already you're looking at closer to three hundred people for all three buildings, and that's being generous, it could easily be as many as a thousand...again this is all slap bang in the middle of New York freaking city.

It's not a case of slapping a package on the wall either, we're talking major drilling work and significant structural alterations to make space for the extra explosives, again all without anyone noticing...in really busy office spaces.

Then you have to somehow cover up the fact that the those buildings all stink of fresh paint on every single floor, to the point where not one single person in those buildings notices.

Then finally you have to remember that Nixon couldn't get two guys to bug a sleazy hotel room without getting caught practically red handed because one of them opened his mouth at the wrong time.

It's impossible. It's so ridiculously convoluted it could be straight from the pages of a 1950's comic book.